ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked-

Sustainable Local Transport

Julian Smith: What steps he is taking to encourage sustainable local travel.

Andrew Bridgen: What steps he is taking to encourage sustainable local travel.

Philip Hammond: Our commitment to sustainable local travel is evidenced by our decision to establish a £560 million local sustainable transport fund. We will shortly set out the criteria for bidding for the fund, and we will publish a White Paper next month setting out the policy initiatives that we will take forward in supporting local authorities to deliver sustainable local travel.

Julian Smith: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. One of the biggest concerns for many people in rural constituencies such as mine is the future of local bus services. What reassurance can he give to my constituents that the particular needs of rural communities will be truly taken into account in the new funding formula?

Philip Hammond: It is not a new funding formula. The local sustainable transport fund is a fund to which local authorities can submit bids, so if they have innovative schemes to support rural bus services they will be able put in bids to the fund. The Minister for Local Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), has been working with bus companies and the Local Government Association over the past few weeks to ensure that the guidance to local authorities on the distribution of funding for concessionary fares does protect rural bus services, and he has achieved a major advance in ensuring that rural bus services are protected.

Andrew Bridgen: In a constituency such as mine, which consists of towns and many villages but no railway station, the local bus service is absolutely essential in ensuring that our villages remain vibrant hubs and do not become merely dormitories. Does the Minister have any plans to review the 90% law, whereby the local authority has to provide access to a bus service for only 90% of the population?

Philip Hammond: We have no plans to review the rule.

Maria Eagle: Local transport and the bus service, in particular, is essential for many people, and of course it needs to be sustainable, but does the Secretary of State agree that cuts of 20% to the bus service operators grant will not only lead to fewer bus services and higher fares, but push people back into their cars and, therefore, do nothing for sustainability?

Philip Hammond: No, I do not. The hon. Lady will recall that prior to the spending review there was a great deal of speculation that the bus service operators grant would be abolished altogether, and the bus service operators warned of significant fare increases and cuts to services if that were to happen. I am pleased to say that we were able to achieve a cut of only 20% in the BSOG, and the operators indicate to us that that should not lead to a loss of services or to significant fare increases.

South London Line

Simon Hughes: What recent discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the future of the South London line.

Philip Hammond: There have been no recent discussions between the Department for Transport and the Mayor of London regarding the South London line. We are aware that officials from Transport for London have been discussing their plans to mitigate the loss of the South London line service, following its replacement with the new East London line services through Southeastern.

Simon Hughes: The Secretary of State's announcement last week about London Bridge and Thameslink is hugely welcomed by all our communities, but the one qualification, of which he is probably aware, is that it might have an adverse impact on use of the South London line. Will his Department be positive and constructive with the Mayor of London and local authorities to see whether we can resolve the one remaining piece of the jigsaw-problem, so that everybody can be 100% happy-rather than just 90% happy with a little way to go?

Philip Hammond: I am aware of the concerns about the loss of the South London line service. As my hon. Friend knows, the Mayor of London asked for the alternative proposal of a Victoria to Bellingham service to be dropped in favour of providing additional financial support to the East London line extension, but I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend and to other hon. Members who are concerned about the matter to try to ensure the best possible provision of services within the constraints that will exist at London Bridge and Clapham Junction.

John Spellar: May I express my astonishment that the Secretary of State has not had a discussion with the Mayor of London about the chaos on London's transport and, indeed, throughout the country? Will he tell the Mayor to stop swanning around in Switzerland, get back here and get a grip? When will he and the Minister get a grip on the transport chaos in this country?

Philip Hammond: The question was about the South London line and my answer was that I had not had any recent discussions with the Mayor of London on that issue. I do, of course, have regular discussions with the Mayor of London on all sorts of subjects and will continue to do so. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the mood of the British public, who are concerned to make the best possible fist of Britain's bid for the 2018 World cup.

Cycling

Caroline Lucas: What steps his Department is taking to promote cycling as a means of transport.

Norman Baker: We set out our commitment to sustainable local travel, including cycling, in our decision to establish a local sustainable transport fund.
	The spending review made available £560 million over four years. It will be for local partnerships-local transport authorities working with their communities-to identify the right solutions for their areas in bidding for funding. Bids involving cycling will be well placed to capitalise on the objectives of the fund to help create growth and cut carbon.

Caroline Lucas: The axing of the highly cost-effective body, Cycling England, wiped out the arrangement whereby money was effectively channelled into school and workplace projects that are run by charities such as Sustrans and CTC. What is the Minister's plan B to ensure that cycling charities and campaigning groups, such as those in my constituency, can continue to work with schools and businesses to deliver cycling's many benefits? How will he know if that plan B is working?

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that Bikeability, one of the main schemes delivered by Cycling England, has been retained at a national level. Funding for it will be top-sliced from the local sustainable transport fund. We are in regular contact with organisations such as Sustrans to ensure that they are plugged in. I assure the hon. Lady that bids to the local sustainable transport fund will be regarded more favourably if they have involvement from voluntary community groups, such as the one that she has described.

Martin Horwood: The cycle to work scheme has involved some 400,000 people over the past decade. It was recently put in jeopardy by a ruling of Revenue and Customs. What representations will Ministers make to their Treasury colleagues to ensure that that important scheme is not jeopardised?

Norman Baker: I am aware of the value of that scheme in encouraging cycling. I have received representations from hon. Members about the scheme, but I hope that the concerns are unfounded. I assure my hon. Friend that I wrote to the relevant Treasury Minister three or four weeks ago. I will ensure that he receives a copy of the reply.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a very good point about people's concerns over the responsibilities of Cycling England being returned to the Department. The accepted wisdom is that cycling is good for health, reduces congestion and reduces emissions. There has been an explosion in cycling, partly because of the £140 million that was pledged by the previous Government for 2008 to 2011. However, there are anxieties about the future of cycling. Will the Minister be more specific about how the Government will monitor the amount of money that is available and the effectiveness of the spend, because the concern, as the hon. Lady said, is that the Department has taken its eye off the ball?

Norman Baker: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the Department has not taken its eye off the ball. Cycling was mentioned as a priority in the coalition agreement and £560 million is a substantial amount of money for a local fund, by any degree. Bikeability is being retained. On monitoring, we will ensure that public money that is allocated to local authorities is well spent. Indeed, we are sponsoring a new indicator to measure the response that we get to money that is spent on cycling.

Stella Creasy: I wish that I had got on my bike to get here this morning, rather than relying on Transport for London. I am sure that all hon. Members agree that it is vital that young people learn how to cycle. Will the Minister therefore clarify what has happened to the £5 million of Bikeability funds that he claimed previously would be administered through school sport partnerships, now that those are being abolished?

Norman Baker: There is £11 million for Bikeability in this financial year, which is available to local highways authorities and school sport partnerships. Bikeability funding will continue for the rest of the Parliament, as we have indicated. We are funding 275,000 Bikeability level 2 training places for children this year and a further £500,000 is available in bursaries for the training of cycling instructors. It is clear that our commitment to cycling is undimmed and that we have a plan in place to deliver on that.

Local Authority Transport Schemes

Lilian Greenwood: What recent discussions he has had with local authority leaders on the future of funding for major local authority transport schemes.

Philip Hammond: Officials have written to all relevant local authorities, enclosing the document "Investment in Local Major Transport Schemes", which was made available to Members of this House on 26 October and which sets out the position on the future funding of major schemes. Detailed discussions are ongoing.
	In the longer term, I have made a commitment to consider the options for a much greater devolution of capital budgets and prioritisation decisions for local major schemes and will in due course discuss the best way forward with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships once they are established.

Lilian Greenwood: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. As he knows, there is deep concern about the decision to postpone improvements to the A453 in Nottinghamshire. There is an appetite locally, across all parties, for exploring ways to retrieve the situation, and it has been suggested that a regional growth fund bid could be made to contribute to the cost. Would the Secretary of State welcome such an approach? Will he facilitate the participation of the Highways Agency in assisting local partners to explore such a possibility?

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Lady knows, the A453 is a Highways Agency scheme and not, strictly speaking, a local authority major scheme. It is not the kind of scheme that was primarily intended to be a beneficiary of the regional growth fund.
	I have written to the hon. Lady on this subject and indicated that we will be looking at Highways Agency schemes that are not currently prioritised for commencement in this spending review period, with a view to identifying those that will be accelerated as first reserves, as it were; inevitably, programmes sometimes slip and there is a requirement for additional schemes. We will be looking at that in the new year.

Adrian Sanders: Would the Secretary of State be willing to meet the local authority leaders of Devon, Torbay and Teignbridge, who are united in wanting to see improvements to the A380-namely, the south Devon link road and a bypass around Kingskerswell?

Philip Hammond: I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), has already met local authority leaders in the area. If I could give my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders) a piece of advice, it would be that he and his local authority colleagues need to work on the scheme with a view to getting the cost down, so that the total cost-benefit ratio improves. That will make it much more likely that the scheme will be able to be funded from central Government funds.

Graham Stringer: Unlike other spending blocs, the gap between spending in the south-east and the rest of the regions has been increasing over the past 10 years. If there is to be real investment in major schemes in our major regional cities, that gap will have to be closed. What plans does the Secretary of State have to close that gap?

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Government have committed themselves to a public consultation in the new year on the High Speed 2 rail scheme. They have allocated £750 million worth of funding to take that scheme forward during the current spending review period.
	That project-a strategic investment project-will more effectively close the gap between north and south and address the issues of differential economic growth rates than any other regional initiative that has been taken in the past couple of decades. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the commitment that the Government are making to that project, despite strong opposition to it in the southern half of the country.

Paul Maynard: Does the Secretary of State agree that notwithstanding the benefits of high-speed rail, the only way really to improve the north's economic performance in the here and now is to improve connectivity within the north through projects such as the northern hub? Does he agree that that will require not just Government support, but effective regional strategic planning, which we have not seen so far?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate of the northern hub since long before his election to the House. He has made the case and continues to make it powerfully. It is a very important project. Network Rail is taking forward work on the northern hub proposal with a view to considering its inclusion in the next financial control period, starting in 2014.
	I agree with my hon. Friend. Projects of that nature realise their full potential only if they are properly integrated, with wider regional policies being adopted.

Road Safety

Paul Blomfield: What assessment he has made of the effects of reductions in road safety grants and the ending of Government funding for speed cameras on the number of road traffic (a) accidents and (b) fatalities.

Michael Penning: No assessment has been made about the effect on road accidents that may result from changes to road safety grants. The Government continue substantially to fund local transport in local authorities, including for road safety. Speed camera operations can still continue if the local authorities decide that they wish them to do so.

Paul Blomfield: Frankly, I am shocked to hear the Minister say that no assessment has been made regarding the consequences of significant cuts to capital and revenue funding and the ending of specific ring-fencing for local authority road safety grants at a time when local authorities are going to be under unprecedented financial pressure. I urge the Minister to think again about the dangerous consequences of the lack of priority that the Government are giving to road safety.

Michael Penning: Especially as an ex-fireman, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that road safety is paramount for this Government. That is why I am taking this forward in such strong ways, particularly with local authorities. It is for local authorities, not central Government, to decide what is best for their communities. Speed cameras have been beneficial in some parts of the country, but they have also been seen as cash cows. It is for local authorities to decide, and we will work with them.

Bob Russell: May I draw the Minister's attention to early-day motion 1084, moved by me and co-sponsored by two former road safety Ministers, one Labour and one Conservative? The EDM welcomes a report from the RAC Foundation which confirms that each year the presence of speed cameras prevents 800 people from being killed or seriously injured. In the light of that, will the Minister give more credit to speed cameras, because they do save lives?

Michael Penning: I pay credit to the work that my hon. Friend has done over many years on road safety. The truth of the matter is that some speed cameras do fantastic work, and some do not. In local authority areas such as Swindon, where speed cameras have been stopped altogether, there has been no indication of an increase in accidents since they have gone. It is for local authorities to decide, and we will work with them, but the public must be with them when it comes to speed cameras. The public must, whatever happens, be confident that speed cameras are there for the right reason.

Andrew Gwynne: The Minister has said:
	"We would expect that road safety would remain a priority for local communities and that local spending would reflect that."
	The RAC calculates that speed cameras save 70 lives a year. Can the Minister tell the House how it is supposed to ensure that road safety remains a priority when his Government are cutting funding to local government by more than 30%? Is not the truth that ending Government funding for speed cameras is nothing to do with dictating priorities to local government but all about them making cuts to vital road safety measures that he does not wish to defend?

Michael Penning: The shadow Minister is better than that; he knows full well that some speed cameras work very well and some do not. The pre-2004 speed cameras in many areas, including my own, where the money was hypothecated straight back to the local authorities, were there to raise cash, not necessarily to prevent accidents. It is up to local authorities to use the money that has been given to them by central Government for their communities. It is for them to decide, not central Government.

Thameslink

Gavin Shuker: What steps he is taking to ensure that the Thameslink project is completed on time.

Philip Hammond: As I confirmed on 25 November, the Thameslink programme will go ahead in full. To improve delivery confidence, we will defer completion of the full programme, allowing 24 trains per hour in each direction, until 2018. This will reduce both cost and risk, particularly in respect of the reconstruction of London Bridge station. Passengers will start to see benefits from December 2011, when works at Blackfriars will be completed, and some 12-car trains will start to run from Bedford through to Brighton.

Gavin Shuker: As the Secretary of State will be aware, many of my constituents are struggling to get into work this morning on the existing rolling stock. New rolling stock is therefore vital as part of the Thameslink upgrade. Would he be willing to share the time scales for delivery of such rolling stock and place the information on record in the House?

Philip Hammond: It is expected that the new Thameslink rolling stock-1,200 vehicles-will start to be delivered in 2015, and delivery should be completed by 2019.

Stephen Barclay: As part of completing the Thameslink project, will my right hon. Friend ask officials to look at the cost benefit of extending the line beyond Cambridge to include areas such as Ely and Littleport on the way to King's Lynn, because the service is planned to stop at Cambridge, yet the cost of electrification beyond there would be £60 million to £80 million out of a £5.5 billion overall cost?

Philip Hammond: There are no plans to look at further extension of the Thameslink programme during the current control period but, as my hon. Friend will know, the next Network Rail control period begins in 2014, and proposals for infrastructure enhancements to the network beyond 2014 will be looked at and evaluated over the next couple of years.

Louise Ellman: It is apparent that the Thameslink project is essential for the cascading of rolling stock to the north. Can we be assured that that rolling stock will be of good quality and not simply cast-offs from Thameslink? How will the Secretary of State's statement about delays on Thameslink affect the north getting good-quality rolling stock to relieve overcrowding?

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Lady knows, the cascading of rolling stock from First Capital Connect's existing operations to the north-west depends on the completion of the electrification programme in the north-west, which, as I indicated last week, is expected to be completed in 2016. By that time, rolling stock will have become available, so this does not involve any further delay. In terms of the quality of the stock, it is not, of course, new rolling stock, but it is good quality, with a significant remaining life expectancy.

Station Improvements

Nigel Adams: What plans he has for the future funding for the national station improvement programme and access for all grants.

Norman Baker: We intend to proceed with funding the £150 million national stations improvement programme to modernise approximately 150 medium-sized stations in England and Wales between 2009 and 2014. Similarly, we intend to proceed with the £370 million programme to improve access at stations in England, Scotland and Wales between 2006 and 2015.

Nigel Adams: The Minister will be aware that Selby railway station in my constituency does not have a passenger lift facility-its three platforms are currently connected by a wooden footbridge. What can the Minister tell my disabled or elderly constituents who are currently unable to use one of the platforms, thereby restricting their journeys somewhat, about the funding application for a passenger lift at the station?

Norman Baker: Selby station dates from a time when mobility was considered differently-indeed, I think it was the first station opened in Yorkshire, although presumably another was opened at the same time for trains to arrive at. I appreciate that that can present barriers to access for disabled people. Selby has already benefited from around £36,000 of small schemes funding towards automatic doors, customer information systems and non-slip flooring. Although I cannot guarantee the outcome of a future application for funding, we will give fair and full consideration to any proposal to create level access to platforms 2 and 3.

Roads (Essex)

Priti Patel: What recent representations he has received on future expenditure on roads in Essex; and if he will make a statement.

Michael Penning: I have received correspondence from four hon. Members as well as from Essex county council about investment on the A12.

Priti Patel: Is the Minister aware of the "Save Lives Not Time" petition in my constituency? It calls for improvements to the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, particularly in respect of the need to reduce speed on that road, which-as he may know-is described by the Road Safety Foundation as the 10th most dangerous single carriageway in England. My constituents would welcome a commitment from the Department to work with our local community to improve that road so that lives can be saved.

Michael Penning: I know that part of the world very well, particularly the A12 and the A120, and I know how dangerous the section of road to which my hon. Friend refers is. The Department will work with the campaign that she is working hard to pursue. My officials are listening, so they will know that they are to work with Essex county council and other officials to make that road safer.

Sustainable Local Transport

David Amess: What steps he is taking to encourage sustainable local travel.

Norman Baker: Our commitment to sustainable local travel is evidenced by our decision to establish a £560 million local sustainable transport fund. We will shortly set out the criteria for bidding for the fund and will publish a White Paper next month setting out the policy initiatives that we will take forward in supporting local authorities in delivering sustainable local travel.

David Amess: Like most cycle networks in the country, ours does not best meet the needs of our local centenarians. Our ageing population very much depends on buses. Given that the bus companies are asking for subsidies and that the local authority has no money, can the Government help?

Norman Baker: I think the local sustainable transport fund helps directly. The hon. Gentleman made a connection between elderly people and cycling. When I was in Holland, I was interested to find out that 75% of journeys by pensionable persons were taken by bike, so we have some way to go in this country. The fund, which is designed to create growth and cut carbon, is well positioned to receive bids that will enhance cycling provision in Southend and elsewhere.

Clive Betts: The Minister is aware that there is a proposal for a national trial for a tram-train in south Yorkshire, which would help to get people out of their cars and on to public transport. When I asked the Secretary of State last week about the status of that project, I believe that he said it was on his desk pending a decision. Can the Minister now enlighten the House on whether a decision has been taken to go ahead with that nationally important pilot project?

Norman Baker: The details of that particular scheme are still being worked out, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that discussions on it have involved me, the Secretary of State and the Transport Minister, who has responsibility for rail. Enabling tram-train to go ahead could provide an important benefit to public transport. We want to get the details right, so no firm decision has yet been taken.

Low-emission Vehicles

Andrew Selous: What steps he is taking to encourage greater use of low-emission vehicles.

Philip Hammond: Decarbonisation of motor transport is one of my key priorities. The recent spending review announced that the Government have made provision of over £400 million for measures to promote the uptake of ultra-low carbon vehicle technologies. These measures include support for consumer incentives, development of recharging infrastructure, and a programme of research and development work.

Andrew Selous: When does my right hon. Friend expect that it will be an economically rational decision for most people to buy a low-emission vehicle?

Philip Hammond: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that with the benefit of the Government's consumer incentive of up to £5,000 a vehicle, it will be an eminently rational decision for anyone to start purchasing an electric vehicle from next February, when they appear on the UK's roads. The cost per kilometre of running an electric vehicle that is charged overnight with cheap-rate electricity will be between 1p and 3p, which compares favourably with the price of petrol.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Is he aware of the application that the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland have submitted to the Office for Low Emission Vehicles regarding the plugged-in places vehicle initiative, which would promote an infrastructure in Northern Ireland for electric vehicle charging? What is the status of the application, and may I request that he gives it his support?

Philip Hammond: We are evaluating the bids that we have received for the second round of the plugged-in places programme and an announcement will be made in the new year.

Bus Services

Diana Johnson: What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the outcomes of the comprehensive spending review in respect of the bus service operators grant on local bus services and fares.

Norman Baker: We estimate that the 20% reduction in bus service operators grant from 2012-13 would lead to a potential increase in average fares of around 1.5%. However, the bus industry is hopeful that, in general, this reduction could be absorbed without fares having to rise.

Diana Johnson: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has told people to get on the bus to look for work. What does the Minister say to my constituents in Kingswood and Bransholme, which are on the outskirts of Hull, who are looking for work, but are worried that the cuts that are being implemented will lead to a reduction in the less profitable bus services, as well as higher fares for people who are struggling already?

Norman Baker: We want to see more people on buses but, as I have indicated, the reduction in BSOG is less than the average reduction in the Department's revenue budget, which recognises the importance of the bus network. When I spoke to the industry following the spending review announcement, it indicated that the cut was so minimal that it hoped that it could absorb it without fares having to rise, which is what we hope will happen.

Train Overcrowding

Jonathan Reynolds: What steps his Department is taking to reduce overcrowding on trains.

Philip Hammond: An additional 650 carriages will be delivered to the rail network between 6 May 2010 and March 2014. In addition, about 600 new carriages for the Crossrail project and up to 1,200 new carriages for the Thameslink programme will be delivered between 2015 and 2019, releasing large amounts of rolling stock for redeployment on other lines to increase capacity.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The growth in the northern economy over the past 10 to 15 years has heralded a significant rise in rail travel. Passenger growth in my region is set to rise further still, and that is particularly the case in constituencies such as mine that lie on or near the edge of major conurbations. In light of that, and following on from his response to the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), what assessment has he made of the benefits that the northern hub could bring to the northern economy by relieving overcrowding and putting in place faster and more frequent trains?

Philip Hammond: As I said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), the northern hub is an interesting and potentially valuable project. Network Rail is evaluating the project, but until we have a proper engineering scheme with a cost attached, it is clearly impossible to carry out a robust cost-benefit analysis. Once we are in a position to produce that, we will be able to examine the scheme properly for prioritisation in the control period 5 investment programme.

Simon Kirby: Is the Secretary of State aware that-with the possible exception of today-trains from Brighton to Victoria are often very overcrowded?

Philip Hammond: Yes, of course I am. The Thameslink project will deliver relief on lines across London from north to south and to Brighton, and will hopefully relieve part of the problem on the Brighton-Victoria line to which my hon. Friend refers.

Jonathan Edwards: Does the Secretary of State agree that electrifying the Great Western main line would be one way of increasing capacity, especially in south Wales?

Philip Hammond: I do not believe that electrification will deliver increased capacity; there is capacity on the main line now. I told the House last week that we will work with the Welsh Assembly Government to build and validate the business case for electrification of the Great Western main line into south Wales. I spoke to the Deputy First Minister late last week, and such work between officials in the two Governments is now ongoing.

Jo Johnson: Will the Minister undertake a review of overcrowding and value for money in general on commuter trains run by Southeastern to Orpington, which, uniquely in the country, has been saddled with a retail prices index regime of RPI plus 3 over recent years?

Philip Hammond: The faster rate of fare increases on Southeastern is, as my hon. Friend knows, related to the introduction of the high-speed Javelin trains, which have managed to continue running very effectively during the current period of weather disruption. We are reviewing value for money on the rail network as a whole. Sir Roy McNulty is conducting that review, and I will publish his interim findings shortly, and a final report in April next year.

Topical Questions

John Mann: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: Since I last answered Transport Questions, I have confirmed that Thameslink will go ahead in its entirety and announced £900 million worth of rail electrification projects and 2,100 new rail carriages. I have also announced the sale of a 30-year concession on High Speed 1 for £2.1 billion.

John Mann: Since the last Transport Questions, I have corrected the Minister with responsibility for roads: there have been 27 collisions at Elkesley on the A1 in the past five years. When will the Minister press the button to start this scheme, which is designed and ready to go, so that we can save lives by building the bridge at Elkesley?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman knows that road schemes are evaluated on a cost-benefit basis. Accident figures are one of the factors taken into account and built into the analysis, but we will always look at the cost-benefit analysis-the overall benefits that the scheme will bring, compared with the costs-and all schemes have to be looked at fairly and objectively in the light of the limited funding available.

Tony Baldry: Prodrive is one of the most cutting-edge and significant companies in my constituency. It does excellent work on automotive engineering, including producing a new generation of Mini rally car. What are the Government going to do to make it easier for rallying to take place on roads in the UK?

Michael Penning: Legislation dating from the 1930s restricts rallying, time trials and races on highways in the UK. An Act of Parliament would be required to change that. We are looking to deregulate the position so that if local authorities want to hold rallies, time trials or races, they should be allowed to do so.

Maria Eagle: The winter resilience review commissioned by the previous Government has produced its final report and recommendations, yet the country is in chaos, with passengers forced to sleep at stations, freezing all night on broken-down trains or getting trapped in their cars, all at a cost to the economy of up to £1.2 billion a day. Why are not the findings of the review being implemented? The public do not want the Secretary of State to announce another review by the person who has already set out the blueprint for improvements. They want him to get on and implement the recommendations and improvements. When is the Secretary of State going to get a grip?

Philip Hammond: First of all, the hon. Lady fails to recognise the scale of the weather event that is occurring. It involves a significantly bigger snowfall than the one that occurred earlier this year, which gave rise to the events that caused my predecessor to commission the review. The findings and recommendations of the review have been implemented, and I have asked David Quarmby to come back and audit their implementation so that we can see the extent to which they have been consistently implemented and whether there are any lessons that we can learn from the last few days. I hope that the hon. Lady will support that approach.

Robert Halfon: Thousands of my Harlow commuters have been braving the weather to travel on the Harlow to London rail line. They have suffered a 30% increase in train overcrowding in recent years. Will the Minister look at the economic benefits of upgrading the West Anglia main line?

Philip Hammond: As my hon. Friend will know, 176 additional carriages are due to be delivered to the Greater Anglia franchise next year. That will assist with overcrowding overall. In regard to the upgrading of the line, I have said in response to other questions today that we are prepared to look at proposals for further network enhancements as possible investments for control period 5, which begins in 2014.

Barry Sheerman: Is the Secretary of State aware that the answer given just a few minutes ago by the Road Safety Minister is probably the worst answer I have heard in this House in 31 years? Professor Richard Allsop, an acknowledged world expert on transport safety, says that 800 people will die because of the Government's policy on speed cameras. Is the Secretary of State going to just sit there and let that happen?

Philip Hammond: No, and I completely reject the analysis. As the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), has said, speed cameras are useful additions to the road safety armoury in some locations. It is for local authorities to decide whether they wish to continue with speed camera operation. I hope that they will act responsibly and carefully in making those decisions.

John Baron: The Secretary of State is right to consider the introduction of automatic number plate recognition technology at the Dartford crossing to ease congestion. Given that the crossing makes some £45 million a year, would it not be better to consider the effect of how the new technology improves congestion before increasing toll charges to help fund a new crossing?

Michael Penning: My hon. Friend has campaigning for many years to get the tolls removed from the Dartford river crossing, but we need the investment not only for vehicle recognition, so that we can have free flow coming through and the realignment of the road, but for the preliminary work for the new crossing.

Clive Efford: In the Secretary of State's response to the resilience review, he stated that he was dissatisfied with previous performance and the level of disruption and that it would be sorted in time for this winter. What went wrong? His response just now was not good enough. It is not good enough just to say that there has been a bit extra snow.

Philip Hammond: Let me make this clear: when we have extremely heavy snow and extremely low temperatures, there will be disruption to the transport system. The question is not about whether there is disruption. The question we now have to ask is whether anything could or should have been done that was not done. If there is anything, we will learn the lessons from that.
	In the events earlier this year, the problem was that local authorities and the Highways Agency had inadequate supplies of salt and grit. We have more than adequate supplies of salt and grit and we have new equipment out on the strategic road network. Six runs per day across the strategic road network have been going on over the past 48 hours. The strategic road network, with one or two specific exceptions, is open and operating today.

David Rutley: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he will be able to give further details on any impact the extension of High Speed 2 to Manchester will have on existing rail services, including those from Manchester to Euston, which make an important stop at Macclesfield?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to observe that the introduction of HS 2 services in 2025 will of course change the nature of operations on the west coast main line. It will create additional capacity on that line and provide the opportunity for more trains that stop at more places, which is one of the demands that we regularly receive, and it will also create the opportunity for more freight paths and thus more transfer of freight from road to rail. The precise detail of service patterns will have to be decided when the franchise for west coast main line post-2025 is let.

Dennis Skinner: Instead of all these reviews about the weather, why does not the Secretary of State get on the phone to the Tory councils in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire and tell them to get the gritters out?

Philip Hammond: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that gritters on the strategic road network, which are operated by the Highways Agency, have been out and have been carrying out the planned number of gritting runs.

Dennis Skinner: I am talking about villages.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says he is talking about villages. One thing I have asked David Quarmby to do is to consider the response of local authorities, whether they have uniformly implemented the recommendations in his review, which reported earlier this year, and what lessons have to be learned. I shall make public David Quarmby's findings, which we expect to receive in a couple of weeks' time.

John Leech: May I urge the Secretary of State to ignore today's report from the Select Committee on Transport on the North review in the same way as the report ignored conclusive evidence that reducing the drink-drive limit would save lives? Instead, will he bring forward proposals to reduce the drink-drive limit from 80 mg to 50 mg?

Philip Hammond: I have not seen the conclusive evidence that the hon. Gentleman speaks of, but I have seen various opinions in this area. I have not yet read the Transport Committee's report but I have to say to him that I am a little surprised to hear him, as a member of that Committee, urging me to ignore its report and findings. Part of our democratic process is to have our debates in the Committees and to get behind their findings and reports when they are published.

Joan Walley: Can the Secretary of State update the House on progress following the consultation on the safety at street works and road works code of practice? More than 500,000 people are working on the highways unprotected, and we need new legislation to be able to get new jobs, which could be based in areas outside the south-east.

Norman Baker: I am happy to say that we are having discussions in the Department with relevant bodies outside, including the roadworks community, to work out how best to go forward and ensure that we get the balance right between improved safety, where that is appropriate, and not loading inappropriate costs on business.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked-

Female Company Directors

Stephen Metcalfe: What plans she has to increase the number of female company directors.

Lynne Featherstone: I offer the apologies of the Minister for Women and Equalities to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House. She cannot attend questions today as she is in Brussels for a meeting of the European Union's Justice and Home Affairs Council. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who is responsible for disabled people, and I will endeavour to field questions.
	Lord Davies has been appointed to consider how obstacles can be removed to allow more women to make it to the boardroom, and we will respond to his recommendations in due course. Measures that we are taking on positive action, flexible working and parental leave will also help address some of the barriers to progression that women face in the workplace.

Stephen Metcalfe: Having worked with my wife, my mother and my sister at board level, I am only too aware of the value that female directors bring to a company. What steps will my hon. Friend take to redress the balance of company boards tending to be predominantly male?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend is entirely right. Diverse organisations that reflect their customers offer better products and services as a result. In addition to appointing Lord Davies and implementing positive action, we are working with partners to encourage greater gender pay transparency. As I announced this morning, we will work with business to arrange for companies of 150 staff-not 250, as under the previous Government-to publish information that will allow people to understand their progression in the workplace.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome the Government's strategy to increase the number of women on the boards of companies. Will the Minister seriously consider international best practice, such as that of Norway, and introduce a quota?

Lynne Featherstone: The Government have no intention of introducing legislation permitting quotas, but we will listen to what Lord Davies says when he comes back with his recommendations and respond then.

Lorely Burt: Evidence suggests that companies with a strong female representation at board and top management level perform better than companies without. Does my hon. Friend agree that gender diversity allows companies to understand much better the needs of their customers?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One would think that looking at the success of companies with diversity on their boards, and at the increase in their bottom-line profits, would be persuasion enough, but apparently there is much more to do.

Jo Johnson: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Charlie Elphicke: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Lynne Featherstone: I discussed the reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission with ministerial colleagues only yesterday. We want to focus on its core regulatory and human rights functions and improve its value for taxpayers' money, and we intend to consult on our proposals early next year.

Jo Johnson: Will the Minister say why she believes a voluntary regime for the reporting of equality data will be sufficient to eliminate the persistent gender pay gap that the EHRC identified in its latest triennial review?

Lynne Featherstone: It will most certainly help. The voluntary approach, as introduced by Labour in the Equality Act 2010, is a very good mechanism. However, Government must not dictate to business. Business, the voluntary sector and all participants must come forward to publish details, and we will work with partners to ensure that voluntary publishing goes forward. We expect that it will, but we will not commence, amend or repeal section 78 of the Act, so the stick remains.

Charlie Elphicke: Are the core functions of the commission being successfully addressed? Is it working properly?

Lynne Featherstone: This is an opportunity for the EHRC to focus on its core functions. Unfortunately, when it was originally conceived and set up the previous Government seemed to lump together the previous three commissions with no real direction, no analysis of the skills that were needed and no focus. The EHRC has to become a respected national institution that focuses on its core functions, which are to ensure that people understand equalities discrimination and encourage them to use equalities legislation, and to hold to account those who do not.

Valerie Vaz: One of the EHRC's roles is to nudge us towards a more equal society, so will the Minister say what she is doing to encourage more women apprentices, as they make up only 1% of those in manufacturing industry?

Lynne Featherstone: I will confer with the EHRC, as the hon. Lady said that this was about it nudging people. We are working with the science, engineering and technology sectors, and with all trades, to improve that representation level, as 1% is not acceptable.

Meg Munn: When the EHRC was established, with Liberal Democrat support, one of its key roles was to work proactively, through positive duties and working with organisations to ensure equality, so that cases of discrimination did not arise. In wishing to focus more on regulatory functions, is the hon. Lady not in danger of moving towards a situation where we only punish those who have committed acts of discrimination, rather than having a much more positive approach, as was previously supported?

Lynne Featherstone: No, it is a regulatory function to carry out the first of those core duties, which is to ensure that everyone in the voluntary sector and the workplace understands what equality legislation means to them and then to encourage them to use it. So we are taking a very positive approach. We hope that the end that is the enforcement arm of the regulator will never have to be used.

Paul Maynard: What recent representations has the Minister received from the EHRC about the disparity in tariffs for different types of hate crime? Disability hate crimes uniformly attract a lower tariff than hate crimes motivated by issues of sex or race.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to say that certain forms of hate crime do not have the same aggravated status as others. That is being reviewed as we speak by the Ministry of Justice.

Yvette Cooper: Reform of the EHRC must not be carried out because the Government are running scared of the action that the EHRC is rightly taking against the Government on the spending review. The House of Commons Library has now assessed the tax and benefit measures in the spending review and previous Budgets, and its figures show that Labour's last two Budgets gave more help to women, whereas the spending review and the emergency Budget after the election are hitting women more than twice as hard as men. When women still earn less and own less than men, why have the Government decided that women should pay more?

Lynne Featherstone: The right hon. Lady has raised this issue before, and she rightly says that the EHRC is doing what it is meant to do as an independent body. It is currently on the information trail, asking for information appertaining to the comprehensive spending review. All Departments are assessing the impact on equality and this Government have acted to protect the lowest-paid public sector workers, most of whom are women, from the public sector pay freeze. We have taken the lowest earners-800,000 people, most of whom are women-out of taxation. This Government have acted to protect women.

Iain Stewart: If she will bring forward legislative proposals to amend the requirements for the disclosure of historical convictions for consensual homosexual intercourse for the purposes of preventing discrimination.

Lynne Featherstone: As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities said in her equalities speech last week, the rights and freedoms Bill will include provisions to ensure that those who were prosecuted for consensual gay sex with over-16s at a time when that was illegal may apply to have their conviction deleted from police records. As a result, they will no longer be required to disclose their conviction in any circumstances.

Iain Stewart: Does the Minister agree that one of the benefits of the change is that men with such convictions who have not previously volunteered for charities or other organisations will now be able to do so, as they will no longer have to make the disclosure in their Criminal Records Bureau checks?

Lynne Featherstone: My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is totally unfair and unjust that men who have a conviction for something that has long not been illegal should have to fear that being exposed-and exposed to partners they live with, who may not know. Such men will never again have to disclose that information. I hope very much that those gay men whom that has inhibited from volunteering will now find that inhibition removed.

Alun Michael: What steps the Government are taking to ensure that disabled people are able to participate in elections and referendums.

Maria Miller: There are a number of provisions in legislation that support disabled electors to vote at elections and, by extension, referendums. In particular, local authorities have a statutory duty to carry out a full assessment of polling places at least every four years to ensure that, so far as is practical, all venues are accessible to electors who are disabled.

Alun Michael: I am sure that the Minister would agree that there is still more that can be done-there are lots of things for a variety of disabilities-to ensure that practice is good in every aspect. In particular, will she look at clearing away the clutter of information on referendum ballot forms and election forms? That would mean that the information could be given in large-print form, as appropriate, and that the simplicity of the ballot form would be renewed.

Maria Miller: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because access to voting is important for everybody, and the Government are committed to ensuring that that is the case. There is significant legislation already in place to help that happen, and we will be ensuring that adequate formats are in place for all disabled people at the next referendum. In fact, we have consulted with Scope on the form and design of the ballot paper to be used in the forthcoming voting referendum, so that both partially sighted people and people with learning disabilities will be able to participate.

Jo Swinson: Disabled people are still under-represented in this House and at other levels of elected office. When will the Government implement the commitment in the coalition agreement to introduce extra support for people with disabilities who want to stand for election?

Maria Miller: As my hon. Friend says, we have made a commitment as part of our coalition document to support more disabled people who want to become MPs, councillors or elected officials. We are currently looking at the detail of how best to do that. We will put forward proposals shortly, drawing on the cross-party Speaker's Conference evidence, which has been very useful.

Madeleine Moon: What steps she has taken to increase protection from domestic violence for women.

Lynne Featherstone: On 25 November, we published the Government's vision to end violence against women and girls. It covers a range of measures to support victims of domestic violence, such as 12-month pilots of domestic protection orders and £28 million of funding until 2015 to support specialist services, including local domestic violence advisers, national helplines and work to prevent forced marriage.

Madeleine Moon: If people are arrested or convicted for speeding, or if they are caught drink-driving, they are required to attend rehabilitation training courses. I support go orders, which are a good step forward, but should there not be huge investment and a commitment to ensuring that those who are removed from their homes are also required to attend anger management courses? That is what is needed to prevent further episodes of domestic violence.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the hon. Lady for that thoughtful contribution. I will certainly take it away and consider it.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister will be aware of the Powys woman who has been imprisoned for retracting her rape complaint against her husband. This abused woman has been criminalised, imprisoned and separated from her children, while the man, who the authorities were satisfied had raped her and who they believed had perverted the course of justice, is free. That will terrify other rape complainants who have been abused by their partners. Such women already have to struggle for support to get out of their situation, but they can now see that asking for help may be more dangerous than staying to suffer. Will the hon. Lady institute an holistic inquiry into how such a debacle occurred, say whether her Government's proposal to grant anonymity to men-and thus imply that woman who complain of rape are liars-is going ahead, and explain how they will secure no repetition of such a shameful case?

Lynne Featherstone: There is clearly an issue with women hesitating to come forward. This case and the publicity surrounding it might well have an effect on women. Obviously, I cannot comment on this case, but I am very aware of the need to encourage women to come forward if they have been the victims of rape. They should feel supported and listened to when they come forward. I will look into the case but I do not think it is my job to say today whether we will have an inquiry. However, I can inform the hon. Lady that the rape anonymity proposals have been dropped.

Sheila Gilmore: What assessment she has made of the likely effect on women of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review in the spending review period; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Miller: The Government have published an overview of the impact of the CSR on groups who are protected by equality legislation-the first time this has been done. It shows that women make more use of public services than men. Many of the key services we are protecting, including health, social care and early-years education, will benefit women.

Sheila Gilmore: The figures on the impact of benefit and tax changes, including the measures that were referred to by the Minister for Equalities earlier, show that nearly two thirds of the savings on benefits and tax credits will be borne by women. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions states that services are more used by women, so what practical steps is she going to take to redress the situation, given the huge pay gap which has been mentioned today?

Maria Miller: There are significant measures in the spending review that have clear benefits for women. We are protecting health care funding, extending early-years education, lifting 880,000 of the lowest-paid workers-the majority of whom are women-out of income tax, and increasing child tax credits for the poorest families. The majority of decisions about how Departments will live within their settlements are yet to be made and Departments will consider equalities impacts as they develop their plans. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities said earlier, the Treasury has, for the first time, reviewed the overall impact of the CSR-something that was never done under 13 years of Labour.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: I am afraid that demand exceeds the time available and we must move on.

Winter Weather

Roberta Blackman-Woods: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to update the House on the Government's response to the severe winter weather.

Philip Hammond: Last year, the country experienced the most prolonged period of cold weather for 30 years. Weather conditions meant that the cost to the economy and the disruption to the public was significant and unacceptable. The Government took urgent action during the summer so that the country would be in a more resilient position this winter. We have studied the recommendations in David Quarmby's review of last winter's transport disruption, which was established by my predecessor and which I published in October.
	We have taken action to address the points raised in the review. Salt stocks are at a much higher level than at this time last year and a national strategic salt reserve now exists for the first time to support local authorities whose individual stocks run out. Some 250,000 tonnes of salt have been ordered for that reserve, which will be managed by the Highways Agency, and more than 100,000 tonnes are already in place. In addition, the Highways Agency has 225,000 tonnes of operational stock for use on its own strategic road network and at the end of November local authorities had approximately 1 million tonnes of salt stock. The Highways Agency has ordered a further 60,000 tonnes and Scotland has separately stockpiled 30,000 tonnes.
	Recommendations were also made in the Quarmby report about the measures that local highway authorities needed to take to keep our road network moving in the event of snow and ice this winter. In the past few days, there has been unusually heavy and persistent snow, in much greater quantities than were experienced earlier this year, down much of the eastern side of the country. The great majority of the strategic transport network has been kept open this week, but road and rail services in the areas worst affected by snow have been seriously disrupted. Highways authorities are working to keep roads open, but delays have been caused by broken-down vehicles and minor accidents. It is clear that abandoned and broken-down vehicles preventing access for gritters and in some cases preventing access to highway depots were major factors in yesterday's situation.
	Most airports in England are keeping services running, but Gatwick has been directly affected by the worst of the snow conditions in England and remains closed today. One hundred thousand tonnes of snow have been cleared at Gatwick during the past 24 hours, and 80 full-time equivalent personnel and 47 snow-clearing machines are in operation at the airport. Many eastern rail services and Southern rail and Eurostar services have also suffered disruption and delay. Network Rail and train operators are working together to deliver as many services as possible. Night-time ghost trains have been run wherever possible, but build-up of ice on third rails across the Southeastern and Southern networks has led to loss of power and trains being stranded, causing severe delays and cancellations.
	We are not alone; our northern European neighbours, and even Switzerland, are similarly affected-Geneva airport was closed for 36 hours. The Government fully recognise the frustration of the travelling public, and we are doing everything we can to keep Britain moving. Given that much of the country is being hit by severe weather unusually early this year, I have asked David Quarmby to conduct an urgent audit of highways authorities' and transport operators' performance in implementing the recommendations in his report, and to consider any further steps that might need to be taken.
	I want to make it clear that I am asking David Quarmby to address the question not of whether we expect disruption when we have weather of such severity, but of whether there is anything that could or should have been done that has not been done. I expect to receive his report before the House rises for Christmas, and I will make a statement on his immediate findings at that time.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his response, but does not the fact that he has responded rather than the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who is in his place, show that the Government have no co-ordinated response to the problems created by the severe weather conditions? Will the Secretary of State tell the House who, if anyone, in Government is co-ordinating ministerial colleagues? As he said, the severe winter weather is creating huge problems: 1,500 schools are closed today, disrupting children's education and preventing parents from getting to work; local authorities are reporting concerns about deliveries of grit; and ambulance services and hospitals are reporting cancellations of services. It is clear, therefore, that the problems are not confined to transport, but affect vulnerable people and the running of vital public services.
	People were trapped in their cars, on trains and at isolated stations for many hours during the night, and many others are cut off in their homes, raising concerns about food deliveries and fuel supplies. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell us not just what he is doing, but what the Secretary of State for Education is doing on the schools situation, what the Secretary of State for Health is doing to keep hospitals running, and what the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is doing to ensure that local authorities have what they need? Finally, can the Transport Secretary tell us whether there are any plans to convene Cobra today to help co-ordinate the Government's response to the severe winter weather? That certainly needs to happen.

Philip Hammond: The list of problems that the hon. Lady read out are overwhelmingly related to the difficulties in the transport system. There is a long-established principle that the Department with lead responsibility for the problem co-ordinates across Government, and the Department for Transport has taken the lead in responding to this situation so far.
	The hon. Lady said that local authorities are having difficulty obtaining supplies of grit, but my Department has not been contacted by any local authority with such difficulties. We have more than 100,000 tonnes of grit available in the Highways Agency's strategic stockpile ready to be made available to local authorities if they request it. The hon. Lady asked whether Cobra was planning to meet. The situation is being kept under continuous review, and if it is appropriate to convene a meeting of Cobra later today, that meeting will be convened.

David Tredinnick: Why was the A5 in the midlands partly closed? Will the Secretary of State please write to me about that? Does he recognise that the A5 is a national highway? This is not a county matter.

Philip Hammond: Most of the strategic road network across the country has been kept open, and most of it is open today. Some strategic roads have been closed, particularly on higher ground, either because of exceptionally heavy and drifting snow or because they have been blocked by accidents or abandoned vehicles. Individual decisions will have been made by the Highways Agency or, in some cases, by the police. I will write to my hon. Friend and tell him precisely the reason for the A5 closure.

Maria Eagle: I am afraid that the Secretary of State is demonstrating a remarkable-indeed, breathtaking-degree of complacency. Unfortunately, he is not filling the House with any confidence that he is dealing with his responsibilities adequately. He may recall that, on the publication of the interim report on winter resilience in July, he said:
	"For two winters in a row, severe weather has caused significant disruption for transport in this country. The cost to the economy and the disruption to the public has been significant, and there has been a level of dissatisfaction and confusion about the response by Government at both local and national level. This is unacceptable and must be resolved before the next winter season."-[ Official Report, 26 July 2010; Vol. 514, c. 72WS.]
	Is he really arguing that it has now been resolved?
	Earlier today, during Transport questions, the Secretary of State said not only that the final and interim reports on winter resilience had been studied and not only that action had been taken-which he has just said again-but that the reports' recommendations had been implemented. He appeared to row back from that statement in his response to the urgent question. Will he make clear in what way the 17 recommendations in the interim report and the 11 further recommendations in the final report have been implemented? Has the salt cell been activated, and, if not, can he tell us why not? Have the 250,000 tonnes of salt actually been stockpiled? The Secretary of State said that the salt had been ordered, and then said that there were 100,000 tonnes in the stockpile. The report which he told us earlier had been implemented called for a stockpile of 250,000 tonnes. Can he make the position a bit clearer?
	This winter weather was forecast well in advance. It is not as if it suddenly came on us. The Met Office gave us plenty of warning. Does the Secretary of State believe that a grit audit is an adequate response from the Government to the current suffering of motorists forced to sleep freezing in their cars, of train passengers dropped off at stations with no way of being rescued, and of half the population who struggled to get to work and had to turn up late yesterday? Does he believe that the complacent attitude that he has demonstrated today is anywhere near good enough from people whom purport to be the Government of this nation?

Philip Hammond: rose-

Mr Speaker: Order. I know that the Secretary of State always attempts to respond very comprehensively, but may I appeal to him to do so briefly as well? These are principally Back-Bench occasions; many Members wish to contribute, and brevity is the order of the day.

Philip Hammond: I shall attempt to be brief, Mr Speaker, but the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked me a good many questions.
	I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no complacency whatsoever. I recognise the absolute frustration and, indeed, anger of many people who have been stranded and had their journeys and their lives disrupted over the past 48 hours. Let me repeat, however, that the question is not whether a foot of snow and double-digit negative temperatures create disruption. They will create disruption; they will always create disruption. The question is whether we should or could have done anything differently, and that is what I have asked David Quarmby to consider. As soon as we have the answers to all the very sensible questions asked by the hon. Lady, I will report back to the House.

Philip Hollobone: When it comes to trains and buses, passengers find the weather frustrating, but even more frustrating is often the complete lack of information while they are standing on a cold platform or waiting at a draughty bus stop. What can the Secretary of State do to make sure that senior executives in those largely private companies ensure that information gets to the customers as speedily as possible?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A major part of the problem that we experienced yesterday was lack of information flow. Some train operators have already supplied BlackBerrys to on-train crews so that they can be given real-time updates to advise passengers of what is going on. We must take that process further. The least we ought to be able to do for passengers if they find their journeys disrupted is to give them accurate information about what is going on.

Louise Ellman: The Secretary of State called for a review, but what is he doing to ensure that he can get up-to-date information enabling him to act with urgency? What is the role of regional Government offices in working with local authorities to give him a full and up-to-date picture of what is going on?

Philip Hammond: To be clear, I have asked David Quarmby to audit the implementation of the measures that he recommended in his report. Those were not simply about grit. There are recommendations covering a range of areas and modes of transport. We are getting information-not quite in real time, but by 9 o'clock this morning we had a full situation report on rail services and the condition of the strategic road network across the country. The information about what is happening on individual local authorities' roads is a little more patchy. That issue needs looking at, because the condition of local authority roads can have a knock-on effect on the condition of the strategic road network.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does the Secretary of State agree that in a country with a generally temperate climate, such things will happen from time to time, that it would be disproportionate to spend too much money preventing them, and that even this Government cannot control the weather?

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is of course right. The Highways Agency has invested more than £100 million in new equipment for dealing with snow on the strategic highway network, as well as building a large strategic reserve of salt and grit. As I said earlier, clearly the question is not whether we can eliminate disruption when we get such snowfall in the UK. There will always be disruption. The question is whether there are sensible and proportionate measures that we could and should take which will minimise that disruption.

Brian H Donohoe: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), may I turn the Minister's attention to the airports? The airports in the south-east are closed today, yet the public are given no information about the alternatives. The airport authorities knew a week ago that the present weather conditions would happen. Why are we in such a situation in the south-east of England?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman says that the airports in the south of England are closed, but as of a few minutes ago, when I came into the Chamber, that was not my information. My information was that Gatwick was closed, but Heathrow was operating, albeit with delays. The problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that airports have to operate with a primary focus on safety, and when heavy snow is falling it is not possible to operate the runways safely. I gave the figures earlier for the amount of clearance that occurred at Gatwick yesterday. Vast amounts of snow were moved off the runways and taxiways, but the airport is still not able to operate. If there is any measure that could or should have been taken over the past few days that would have kept Gatwick airport open, that is what we need to focus on, but even Geneva airport has been closed this week.

Martin Vickers: All train services into my constituency are currently cancelled. Bearing in mind that the same routes serve the strategically important port of Immingham, through which much of the country's coal is imported for power stations, can the Secretary of State assure me that improvements will be made to the services?

Philip Hammond: I cannot give my hon. Friend any immediate assurance that improvements will be possible on that line. I understand that the problem in that case is drifting snow, and it will take some time to clear the line and reopen it. I can tell him and the House that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has told me that he is confident that coal supplies are adequate and that we need see no interruptions to power supplies as a result of the present cold snap.

Luciana Berger: May I please have some clarification from the Secretary of State? He said earlier that 100,000 tonnes of salt are available in the strategic supply, yet the review recommended that 250,000 tonnes should be in place by the start of the winter season. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has not fulfilled that recommendation?

Philip Hammond: That is one of the questions that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked from the Front Bench. Let me give the exact figures. Local authorities have just under 1 million tonnes of stock for their own use. The Highways Agency has 225,000 tonnes of stock for its own use, and in addition it has ordered 250,000 tonnes for a strategic stockpile, of which 107,000 tonnes have been delivered. The remainder is expected to be delivered over the next six weeks.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood says that we have not met the target. It was never intended that the 250,000 tonnes would be used up in the first week of winter. It is going to be perfectly satisfactory to have the 250,000 tonnes delivered progressively during the course of December and into early January. Much of the salt is imported by sea from very distant locations, and we expect to have it all on the ground by early January.

Greg Hands: My right hon. Friend will have noted that the tube system is working relatively well today, but he will also have seen that on Monday there was strike action on what was a very cold day, which caused massive disruption. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those who look to pile on the misery by announcing three-day tube strikes, and those like Ken Livingstone who seek to support these strikes?

Philip Hammond: Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do believe there is such a thing as an irresponsible strike.

Vernon Coaker: When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to Mr Quarmby, will he make sure that his review looks not only at strategic routes but at the gritting of local and side roads? Last winter, many of my constituents were trapped in their homes. They were told that that was because the emphasis was on main routes. If they live on hills, for instance, they cannot get out of their homes. Local roads and side roads-and pavements as well-are just as important as some of the big strategic routes.

Philip Hammond: I wonder about the hon. Gentleman's commitment to localism. David Quarmby will be looking at the performance of local authorities, but it is for local authorities to decide on their gritting plan, and most local authorities will not choose to grit every residential side road and every footway. That is a decision for them, and it is for local communities to hold local authorities to account for those decisions. Our job is to make sure that local authorities are doing what they are committed to do on the strategic road network.

Stephen Metcalfe: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all those who, despite the weather, have battled into work to keep our public services open and to negate the effect that this sort of weather can have on our economy?

Philip Hammond: I will indeed. It is very tempting at 6.30 am to look out of the window and decide to turn over and forget about it, so those who have battled with the elements and the disruption on the transport system to keep our public services going should be congratulated.

Tom Blenkinsop: How much of the Highways Agency budget has been, and will be, spent on procuring salt, grit and potash from British suppliers such as Boulby potash mine in my constituency, as opposed to overseas suppliers which the Secretary of State mentioned earlier?

Philip Hammond: The point I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to make is simply not valid. The problem last year was that domestic suppliers could not keep up with demand. Local authorities ran down their stocks, in some cases to nil, and during the summer they needed to rebuild those stocks. To have had the Highways Agency trying to build a strategic stockpile in competition with them would have been deeply unhelpful. We took the decision to import the large part of the strategic stockpile, even though that means paying very considerably higher prices, so that local authorities could restock and the strategic stockpile could be built in parallel.

Therese Coffey: Will the Secretary of State talk to his departmental colleagues, and also to the Prime Minister, about emphasising to people the importance of checking on their neighbours? I acknowledge the work that has been done on ensuring that there is grit, and we have learned the lessons of last winter, but it is essential that we do not forget our communities locally.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend reminds the House of a very important message. We have talked about people struggling to get to work and wrestling with the transport network, but many people, often the elderly, are stuck in their homes and they may be getting into difficulty-they may be unable to shop, for instance. It is very important that we keep delivering the message that those who are able to get out should check on their neighbours and see if there is anything they can do to help.

John Spellar: The Secretary of State said in his statement that the Department for Transport was taking the lead among Departments, yet in that statement there was not one word about what he or any of his Ministers are doing about this crisis. Is not the reality that he is asleep on the job, and when is he going to get a grip?

Philip Hammond: The reality is that the problem on the ground is essentially transport-focused at this stage. Problems in other areas such as the health service are directly related to transport issues, so the Department for Transport has to take the lead. That is what we are doing. We are regularly meeting and communicating with the Highways Agency, train operators and airport operators to monitor the situation; we are doing so on an hourly basis. If it is necessary to convene a meeting of Cobra later today, we will do so.

Charlie Elphicke: Is it not right that we congratulate and encourage those people who are currently hard at work up and down the country clearing snow, and is it not also right that good neighbours should be encouraged to clear pavements outside their own homes?

Philip Hammond: On my hon. Friend's last point, I remind the House that the Government published a code of practice on snow clearing on pavements. Members will remember that during the similar events of last winter earlier this year there was some suggestion that individuals were wary of clearing snow from pavements for fear that accidents caused on that stretch of pavement might lead to legal action. I hope we have dealt with that issue.

Nick Smith: On the topic of getting a grip, has the Secretary of State heard anything from local authorities about neighbourhood gritting barns having been filled this year because of the terrible winter we had last year?

Philip Hammond: That is, of course, a matter for local authorities. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that one of the big problems with strategically placed roadside bins is that the grit local authorities put in them is often removed without authorisation by people wanting to use it on their private properties. That has been a persistent problem for local authorities.

Kevin Barron: The Secretary of State may have heard the report on the "Today" programme about the dozens of lorry drivers who have spent two nights in the Methodist hall in South Anston in my constituency. The road they are stranded on is the A57. That section of it is a major link road between the A1 and the M1 in south Yorkshire. Can the Transport Secretary urgently find out why it has been allowed to get into a state of such chaos?

Philip Hammond: I will check specifically on the situation on the A57 and write to the right hon. Gentleman later today, but I can tell him that generally across the strategic road network, where major problems have occurred the cause has been jack-knifed, broken-down or abandoned vehicles blocking the road so that gritters and snow ploughs cannot get through. In some cases, the problem has been exacerbated by lorry drivers driving in an uncleared third lane of the motorway, often leading to accidents and jack-knifings.

Stella Creasy: Many of my constituents in Walthamstow experienced severe difficulties getting into work during last winter's snow, and I do not share the confidence in the tube system of the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), because I experienced problems this morning. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Mayor of London about how to keep the capital city moving?

Philip Hammond: The Highways Agency and the rail directorate within the Department for Transport are in constant contact with Transport for London. TfL has responsibility for strategic roads in London and needs to operate continuously in conjunction with the Highways Agency. My understanding is that the service on the tube network has been pretty good over the last two days. There may be isolated incidents such as that to which the hon. Lady has referred, but on the whole the service has been good.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State really must get a grip on this situation. For my constituents, Southeastern Trains provides the main route into London as we do not have access to the London underground. We have no trains running on the service through Eltham this morning, yet people are standing on the platforms and the station concourse because they do not know what is going on. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that train operating companies are giving up-to-date information to people who might mistakenly be standing on cold platforms waiting for trains that are never going to turn up?

Philip Hammond: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the lack of information is inexcusable. The Office of Rail Regulation said this morning that it will have its inspectors out on the Southeastern and Southern networks, looking at the information that is being provided and making sure that operators are meeting their obligations under their franchise contracts, and if they are not they will be dealt with according to the provisions in those franchise contracts.

Gisela Stuart: Abandoned cars and accidents add to the chaos. I understand that once the temperature goes below minus 7°, the tyres that we use on our cars are no longer appropriate and safe. Is the Secretary of State having discussions with car manufacturers and automobile organisations about encouraging people to change over to winter tyres, as they do on the continent?

Philip Hammond: We have looked at the issue, and in fact David Quarmby addressed it. The use of winter tyres-snow tyres or even studded tyres-and snow chains is appropriate where people drive for long periods through the winter on compacted snow; it is not appropriate in the situation, as in the UK, where snow is on the ground for relatively short periods. Winter tyres wear out very quickly on normal road surfaces and cause significant damage to those surfaces, so they would not be appropriate in the UK situation.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. There is heavy pressure on time, so we must now move on to business questions, in the use of which, of course, the ingenuity of colleagues is legendary.

Business of the House

Hilary Benn: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 6 December will include:
	Monday 6 December-Opposition Day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "The Unfair Distribution and Impact of Cuts to Local Government Funding".
	Tuesday 7 December-Second Reading of the European Union Bill.
	Wednesday 8 December-Estimates Day [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on police funding for 2011-12 and the Department for International Development's assistance to Zimbabwe. Further details for the second of these debates will be given in the  Official Report.
	 [The information is as follows: Department for International Development's assistance to Zimbabwe (8 th Report from the International Development Committee of Session 2009-10, HC 252); Government Response-Cmd 7899.]
	At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Thursday 9 December-Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by a motion to approve resolution on increasing the higher amount which is to be applied under the Higher Education Act 2004, and a motion relating to the draft Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 13 December will include:
	Monday 13 December-Second Reading of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.
	Tuesday 14 December-Consideration of Lords Amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Terrorist-Asset Freezing Bill [ Lords], followed by Consideration of Lords Amendments.
	Wednesday 15 December-Second Reading of a Bill.
	Thursday 16 December-Motion relating to park homes, followed by a general debate to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 16 December will be:
	Thursday 16 December-A debate on drugs policy.

Hilary Benn: I thank the Leader of the House for his answer. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the programme motion on the European Union Bill published today plans to give the House only four days for Committee consideration and remaining stages? It is a major constitutional Bill, and the time proposed is wholly inadequate, especially when compared with other recent European Bills. I am sure that many Government Members share our view, so will the Leader think again?
	On the plan almost to treble tuition fees, we have just had it confirmed that the vote will be next week, so when will we see the text of the proposals? Of course, the question that everybody wants to ask is, how will Liberal Democrat MPs vote?
	That brings me to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has continued to hawk his guilty conscience around the television studios. I must tell you, Mr Speaker, that I have not checked overnight to see whether he has given an interview to Kazakhstan state television, but last week he suggested that, after carefully considering all the arguments and weighing up the pros and cons of the proposals, the outcome might well be that Liberal Democrat MPs decide, in a show of resolute unity, to abstain-in other words, to sit on the fence, the traditional resting place throughout the ages of Liberal Democrats faced with a difficult decision.
	What a stroke of genius! Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not make a statement to confirm that earlier in the week when he had the chance? Think of the plaudits he would have won from students throughout the country for making a pledge of principled abstention; think of the difficulties he would have avoided; think of the money that would have been saved on all those plane fares to Kazakhstan and back-because the Deputy Prime Minister had to be hustled out of the country to be protected from being asked over and over again, "How are you going to vote?" It is going to be a very expensive betrayal all round.
	When the Leader of the House gets on the phone to Astana, will he also ask the Deputy Prime Minister to explain why back in the summer he told the House that an £80 million loan to Sheffield Forgemasters was completely unaffordable, whereas now we are told that a loan of several billion pounds to the Irish banks is affordable? May we have a statement clearing up that minor contradiction?
	Last week, the Prime Minister, during his doomed attempt to defend the cuts in school sport partnerships, told us to trust the judgment of head teachers. So, what about the judgment of 60 head teachers from throughout England who, in a letter, describe the decision to scrap the scheme with no consultation as "ignorant", "destructive", "contradictory", "self-defeating" and "unjustified"? I think we could say that they are pretty unhappy, so does the Leader of the House have any news for us about an apology from the Prime Minister for having disgracefully attacked the partnerships and called them a failure? When will the Prime Minister make a statement about the U-turn on which he is clearly now working, much to the discomfort of his hapless Education Secretary?
	When the Prime Minister comes to the House, will he explain another U-turn that he has made? Before the election, he said that any Minister who came to him with proposals for cuts in front-line services would be "sent packing". Yet, that is exactly what we now see, with cuts in front-line policing from the Home Secretary, cuts in school sport from the Education Secretary and cuts to local services from the Communities and Local Government Secretary. When can we expect the Prime Minister to live up to his word, or is it just the promises that he casually made that have been sent on their way?
	Finally, talking of sending people packing, and following Lord Young's unhappy experience, I note that last week the Prime Minister was forced to denounce Mr Howard Flight, even before the ermine had touched his shoulders. May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on the criteria he uses for appointing, first, advisers and, secondly, peers? Given the rate at which they are saying things that are unacceptable, he does not seem to be exercising very good judgment.

George Young: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on that performance, which was far more impressive than the Leader of the Opposition's yesterday? Given the impeccable Labour pedigree of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), may I say that he is the only Opposition Member who can say with pride that he is a son not of Gordon, but of Tony?
	Turning to the questions that the right hon. Gentleman poses, I have to say that four days on the Floor of the House is a generous allocation of time for the Bill to which he refers, so long as the House uses it intelligently and does not resort to the sort of tactics that we saw during previous constitutional Bills, parts of which were taken on the Floor of the House.
	Turning to the right hon. Gentleman's second question on higher education, I have to say that he is in no position at all to talk about unity. Yesterday, in an article in the  Evening Standard, the Leader of the Opposition reiterated his long-term policy aim, saying that he wanted a "fairer graduate tax system." Here is what the shadow Chancellor thinks about that:
	"We had the argument about the graduate tax. I just cannot understand why going back there is anything other than a kind of sop to the left."
	And the former Transport Secretary said of the same policy:
	"The trouble is, it can't be done".
	On the specific question that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central poses, we expect to table the motion for the higher cap in the next day or two, and in good time for the debate. The statutory instrument relating to raising the lower cap has already been laid and is on page 1928 of the Order Paper.
	We have debated the loan to Sheffield Forgemasters on several occasions, and when we introduce the legislation the House will have an opportunity to debate the loan to Ireland.
	There was an apology on school sports, and it came from the shadow Education Secretary about the policy that he bequeathed us. In the debate on Tuesday, he said:
	"I am not arguing that it is perfect. Of course it could probably be made more efficient".-[ Official Report, 30 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 709.]
	That is exactly what the Government are doing. We are delivering school sports differently from the previous Government, not pursuing their centralised PE and sport strategy. We will redeploy resources and people to put a new emphasis on competitive sport.
	Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any other Opposition Member will have any credibility whatsoever until they tell the House and the country how they would have delivered the cuts they had pencilled in before the election. They have totally failed to fill in the blanks ever since.
	Finally, on peers, I am sure that my noble Friend-to-be, Lord Flight, will make a useful contribution in the other place. Given time, I could do some research and find out what contributions have been made by Members appointed to the other place by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) of comparable value to those of Howard Flight.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Given the level of interest and the pressure on time, I appeal to colleagues to ask single, short questions and to the Leader of the House to offer his characteristically succinct replies.

Greg Knight: I always used to think that my right hon. Friend was a progressive, but I am beginning to have my doubts. Is he aware that as long ago as 2008, this House was promised a debate in Government time on the electronic petitioning of Parliament? It is now nearly 2011 and we are still waiting. When, oh when, can we debate e-petitions?

George Young: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to the Procedure Committee for their work on electronic petitions. He will know that there is a commitment in the coalition agreement to take the issue forward. I hope that my office will be in touch with his Select Committee shortly to indicate how we plan to bridge the gap between House and country by taking forward the agenda of petitions. The commitment is that when a petition reaches 100,000, it will become eligible for a debate in this House. I am anxious to make progress on that agenda.

Tom Watson: Following on from the point of the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) on e-petitions, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Prime Minister is cancelling his No. 10 Downing street e-petitions site? If so, will he take heed of the right hon. Gentleman's advice and speed up the process of holding that debate in the House?

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is right that the No. 10 e-petitions site has been taken down, but we envisage carrying forward the ability to petition on the Directgov site.

Stewart Jackson: May we have a debate in Government time on equality of opportunity in public expenditure? This week, the Welsh Assembly announced that no Welsh student would pay increased tuition fees. Why is that policy and facility not open to my constituents' children, given that English taxpayers are largely financing such Welsh largesse?

George Young: I understand the aggravation expressed by my hon. Friend's constituents, but the situation he describes is a logical outcome of the policy of devolution, and of giving the Assembly of Wales and the Parliament in Scotland autonomy over issues that were previously reserved to this House.

Natascha Engel: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Backbench Business Committee is conducting an experiment with the pre-Christmas recess Adjournment debate on 21 December? It is doing so in response to the frustration expressed by many Back Benchers, who would like a substantive response to the many issues that they raise in such debates. Will he join me in encouraging hon. Members to apply to the Table Office for the new 10-minute departmental slots by the deadline of 3 pm on Monday 13 December? That will enable the Committee to create departmental groupings so that hon. Members, not least the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), will receive a ministerial response to the many and varied issues they raise.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her public service announcement. She is right to draw attention to the different regime, which is on the Order Paper, proposed for the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate. That will pose an intellectual challenge to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who manages to raise about 30 subjects in a five-minute speech, because he will have to choose one of them. As always, I welcome the way in which the Backbench Business Committee is using the space it has to develop new ways of tackling issues and to provide the House with fresh opportunities to debate matters. I am sure that hon. Members will respond to her invitation to put in for subjects.

Jo Swinson: Many people would find it an unappealing prospect to spend an evening in the hot shopping environment of Hamley's, heaving with excitable children and their stressed parents in the Christmas rush. It is certainly no place for Arctic animals, but, shockingly, Hamley's has advertised in-store displays of live reindeer and penguins. May we have a debate on how animal welfare should be for life, and not forgotten at Christmas?

George Young: Having spent some time in Hamley's shopping for things for children, I understand the pressure on those who go through that ordeal. I will raise with the appropriate Minister the issue of animal welfare that the hon. Lady touched on to see whether there has been a breach of regulations.

Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent statement on the meeting that took place this week between the Defence Minister and President Rajapaksa of Sri Lanka? We understand that it was supposed to be a private meeting, but throughout the meeting, of course, the Defence Minister remained the Defence Minister. Bearing in mind that we are pressing for an inquiry into war crimes in Sri Lanka, may we have a statement on that meeting?

George Young: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that it was a private meeting. I cannot guarantee a statement, but on 14 December there will be an opportunity to ask questions to Ministers from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Bob Blackman: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for a statement or debate on the decision of the Legal Services Commission to withdraw legal aid from the foetal anticonvulsant syndrome group, a group of parents who have campaigned for the past 10 years for justice for their children, who have disabilities caused by drugs taken by the mothers during pregnancy? Some £4 million of legal aid had been agreed with the Legal Services Commission, but on the eve of the trial it withdrew the funding. The litigants now have until 20 December to get it reinstated. I think that that decision should be reviewed in this House.

George Young: I understand the concern that my hon. Friend shares with the House. I will raise the issue with the Lord Chancellor to see whether there is any action that he can take to help.

Tom Harris: In the past 36 hours, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority has been contacting members of the Lobby in this place, offering to identify Members whom it believes have submitted newsworthy claims. Will the Leader of the House seek an urgent meeting with Sir Ian Kennedy, not to listen to more of his bogus denials, but to warn him that this House will not be bullied by such unacceptable and disgraceful behaviour?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I read with interest today the newspaper article that he wrote. The information that appeared in  The Times yesterday was the result of a freedom of information request to IPSA from that newspaper, and it withheld the names of the hon. Members whose claims were rejected. There will be a debate on IPSA shortly and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman, if he catches your eye, Mr Speaker, receives a response to the specific point that he has raised. I quite agree that there can be no question of any Member of this House being bullied.

Edward Timpson: My local Communication Workers Union branch and I appreciate the importance and necessity of the modernisation of Royal Mail. However, according to the most recent quality of postal services report, my constituency has the second-worst postal service in England and Wales. May we have a debate on the quality of postal services so that people such as my constituents do not have to suffer what is sometimes billed as "progress"?

George Young: I admire the way in which my hon. Friend has campaigned for a higher quality of postal service in his constituency. Modernisation must not be held up as an excuse for poor service. However, I will raise this issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who has responsibility for postal affairs. Our legislative proposals that are going through Parliament are designed to drive up the quality of postal services.

Nick Raynsford: The Leader of the House will recall that a week ago I pressed him about the non-appearance of the localism Bill, which one of his right hon. colleagues announced would be published imminently. The Leader of the House was more cautious and said only that it would be published shortly. He has not said anything further about it today, but there was a mysterious reference in his statement to the Second Reading of "a Bill" on 15 December. Will he tell the House whether that mysterious Bill is the localism Bill? Is his coyness connected to the shambolic preparation of that Bill in the Department for Communities and Local Government?

George Young: There is no shambles anywhere in the administration of this coalition Government. However, I have to say that the gestation period for the localism Bill has been a little longer than anticipated. Last week, I said that it would appear shortly, and it will appear very shortly. I hope that it will be before the House well before Christmas.

Jeremy Lefroy: This week's Office for Budget Responsibility report states that
	"if left unaddressed, upward pressure on spending from the ageing of the population might well eliminate the primary budget surplus".
	May we have a debate on that matter? May we also consider the innovative schemes run by local councils up and down the country to address it?

George Young: I applaud any lateral thinking by local authorities throughout the country to deal with demographic pressures. One of the reasons we decided to increase in real terms the budget of the NHS was precisely to deal with the issue that my hon. Friend has touched on-the ageing of the population. Related to that is the extra £2 billion announced in October for adult services and social services. I hope that those, too, will have some impact in dealing with the demands for services as a result of the ageing of the population. When we get the localism Bill, my hon. Friend may have an opportunity to develop his argument at greater length.

Angus MacNeil: I wonder whether Members could get greater notice of statements in the House. I have had the experience of being informed by journalists about statements the night before. If journalists can be informed, surely Members can be given greater notice.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Whenever possible, we try to give notice of a statement on the Order Paper, so that when Members come in, they can see that the Government are planning to make a statement. That is not always possible, but I wholly agree that the House should be informed at least at the same time as the press of any statements that the Government plan to make.

Tony Baldry: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a clear statement to be made on ministerial collective responsibility? I appreciate that established conventions might need to be varied to accommodate a coalition Government, with the coalition partners voting differently in certain circumstances, but it surely cannot be right for Ministers, including the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today, to agonise publicly in newspapers about whether they are going to support the Government in the Division Lobby.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is within his memory and mine that when we had a single-party Government in the 1970s collective responsibility was suspended during the referendum on whether we should stay in the European Community, so there are precedents within single-party Governments for suspending collective responsibility. We have a coalition Government, so some of the normal conventions are not strictly applicable. I draw his attention to section 21 of the coalition agreement, which says in respect of the incident to which I think he is referring, that
	"arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote."

Nicholas Dakin: I am concerned about the impact of Government plans on students in year 12 who are currently in receipt of the education maintenance allowance. It looks as though they may not be eligible for EMA support next year. If so, it would cause unintended hardship, which I suspect the Government do not want. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to clarify that issue?

George Young: I agree that it is important that students should be able to continue their education, and I understand the issue that the hon. Gentleman has just raised about EMA. Rather than arrange for a statement, I will certainly pursue with the appropriate Minister the question of what certainty and assurances can be given to those who need another year, after this year's EMA runs out, to continue their courses.

Robert Halfon: Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 587, which is about creating a Royal Society of Apprentices and is signed by MPs from all parties?
	 [That this House welcomes the Government's plans to restore apprenticeships to their former glory; considers that such a change in policy must be supported by a change in culture; believes that this Parliament should create a new golden age of vocational training, where apprenticeships are seen as prestigious and of equal value to a university degree; further believes that a Royal Society of Apprentices, similar to the Law Society or the British Medical Association, should be established to replicate the vibrant social life of universities for students in vocational training; further believes that there should be an annual apprentices day in every local authority, which would build on the already successful Vocational Qualifications Day and act as a formal graduation ceremony for vocational students; and calls on the Government to add its voice in support of these efforts in the coming months and years.]
	Yesterday I met representatives of the main apprenticeship organisations around the country, and the relevant Minister has also given his backing to the idea. May we have a debate on how we might put it into practice?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. It strikes me that he might apply for one of the slots in the pre-Christmas Adjournment debate, recently advertised by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). He would then have an opportunity to develop his case at greater length and get a confident and, I hope, positive response from the appropriate Minister.

Denis MacShane: The Leader of the House will have seen the reports of concern at the highest levels of the US Government about the state of affairs in Russia-kleptocracy, mafia and state functionaries linked to crime. May we have an early debate on the rule of law in Russia, with particular reference to the lawyer of the British citizen Bill Browder, Sergei Magnitsky, who was put to death almost exactly one year ago? We really have to raise our voices more loudly about the awful things happening in Russia, whatever our geopolitical needs for a strategic partnership with Mr Putin.

George Young: There will be an opportunity at Foreign Office questions on 14 December to raise that specific issue. I cannot promise a debate, but in connection with what has been coming out through WikiLeaks, the Government deplore any unauthorised disclosure of information, particularly if, as the Americans have alleged, it may lead to the risk of loss of life.

Philip Hollobone: When can we expect a debate and vote on the bailing out of the Irish Republic?

George Young: The assistance to the Republic of Ireland requires primary legislation; it requires a Bill. There will be an opportunity to speak and vote on that, and I anticipate that it may come forward in the relatively near future.

Derek Twigg: Following the Prime Minister's intervention in the school sport funding debacle, we have heard that he has asked the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin), the Cabinet Office Minister, to review the reorganisation of the health service proposals made by the Secretary of State for Health. Those proposals will cost £3 billion, and wide concern has been expressed about them. May we have an urgent debate in Government time, so that it can be explained why the Prime Minister needs to review the Secretary of State's proposals for NHS reorganisation?

George Young: The Government will introduce in due course a health reform Bill, which will be an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to develop his case and for the Secretary of State for Health to explain why our proposals for the NHS will deliver a higher quality of service than we are getting at the moment.

David Tredinnick: Further to questions about the situation in Parliament square, is my right hon. Friend aware that there are now tents on the pavement outside at least one Government Department? Does he not think that that reflects very badly on the Government, the Greater London authority and the Metropolitan police? Why is this part of Westminster the only area in the whole United Kingdom where people can pitch a tent and not be moved on by the police immediately?

George Young: The short answer is that that is because of a somewhat surprising decision-which, of course, one cannot criticise-made by a magistrate, who decided that that pavement was not a pavement because very few people used it. The good news for my hon. Friend is that we have now published the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, which deals specifically with encampments on Parliament square. The measures include a power to allow local authorities to attach a power of seizure to byelaws, to allow them to deal promptly and effectively with the nuisances to which my hon. Friend has just referred.

Barry Sheerman: Has the Leader of the House seen the letter in  The Times this morning from well over 100 senior academics about the savage cuts to higher education? Does he not agree that Members on both sides of the House care about the future of higher education? May we have a real debate about the future of higher education and whether the savage cuts are really necessary?

George Young: We had a real debate last Tuesday, when the Opposition chose it as a subject; I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that that was not a real debate. We will have a further debate next Thursday on tuition fees, and there will be an opportunity later to debate when we need to change the legislation to raise the cap on the interest rate. I honestly believe that there have been adequate opportunities, and there will be even more, to debate the future of higher education.

Greg Hands: Staying on the subject of higher education, may we also have a debate about Members of the House who are supporting direct action by students? Earlier, I notified the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that I would be raising this matter. His Twitter feed this morning said:
	"Support Support The Occupations!....To all the student occupations I send a message of my support and solidarity."
	Will my right hon. Friend join me in agreeing that we should be democratically debating the measures rather than taking part in the disruption of our higher education institutions?

George Young: I entirely agree. All hon. Members should act responsibly and should not do anything that encourages unlawful action. I think I read that the hon. Member to whom my hon. Friend refers was going to have a conversation with the Opposition Chief Whip; his future can be safely dealt with by those authoritative hands.

Christopher Leslie: Can we have a proper debate shortly on the impact of the cold weather on domestic energy consumption? The Leader of the House will know that yesterday there was a 25% spike in domestic gas consumption. This is particularly worrying as Ofgem has opened an investigation into potential profiteering by the main energy utility firms. I hope that he agrees that this would be a very bad time for those energy companies to be raising bills further.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who raises a genuine issue about those challenged by winter fuel payments. We have permanently increased the cold weather payment to £25 for seven consecutive days, and the winter fuel payment will continue to be paid at the higher rate of £250 for households with someone aged up to 79. This includes a temporary increase of £50 and £100. Winter fuel payments will remain exactly as budgeted for by the previous Government. On the specific question of exploitation, I will pass his concerns on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change to see whether there is any action that he can take.

Jim Sheridan: Will the Leader of the House expand on his earlier answer about WikiLeaks and arrange for an updated Government statement on this organisation? There could be serious implications for our armed forces and others, and they need to know that we are doing all we can to protect them.

George Young: As I said earlier, the Government deplore these unauthorised leaks of information, which have the potential to destabilise relationships between countries and lead to a risk to life. We deplore what has been put in the public domain, and it is not our policy to comment on unauthorised disclosure of information.

Gregg McClymont: Further to the question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), we have a Business Secretary who develops a policy on tuition fees, tells the country that it is the best policy possible, and then comes to this House and tells us that he has a strong inclination not to vote for his own policy. What are the constitutional implications of this departure?

George Young: The Cabinet has a united policy on this issue, which is more than the shadow Cabinet does.

Emma Reynolds: Labour Members welcome the Prime Minister's rethink about scrapping school sport partnerships. While we try to refrain from saying "We told you so", can the Leader of the House ensure that the Government make a statement on this issue before the Christmas recess to end the uncertainty for schools in my constituency and across the country about their budgets and their ability to continue with sports provision?

George Young: We will make a statement in due course about the allocation of resources to local authorities. As I said earlier, we will be delivering school sports in a different way from the previous Government, and we will announce how we will spend the money we have allocated for school sport in due course.

Gerry Sutcliffe: May we have a debate on where Ministers make statements, to whom, and at what time? We were promised a statement by the Deputy Prime Minister on the progress relating to immigration centres, Yarl's Wood in particular, and that statement should have been made this week. Today, we are told by the press that he is going to make the statement via a video link from Kazakhstan to a charitable organisation. Is not that disrespectful to the House?

George Young: The coalition agreement is quite clear that we want to phase out the detention of children for immigration purposes in centres such as Yarl's Wood. At the moment, we are looking at alternatives-namely, looking after families with children in the community rather than in detention. When those alternatives have been developed, the House will be informed in due course.

Diana Johnson: Given that the coalition has said that because of the Post Office subsidy and the plans for privatisation there will be no further post office closures, can we please have a debate about why a post office in Welwyn Park road in my constituency is going to close imminently?

George Young: I think the Government said that there would be no planned post office closures along the lines that we had under the previous Government, when whole swathes of post offices were closed as part of a policy that that Government developed. We are not going to do that, but of course we cannot stop individual post offices closing if the sub-postmaster wants to withdraw and no one else can be found to take over.

Clive Efford: In the light of some of the exposures on WikiLeaks, may we have a debate on the 22 days when the coalition was formed? May I make the helpful suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman that perhaps we should set aside the Standing Orders of the House and have Mervyn King lead the debate on behalf of the Government? In that way, we could at least hold to account someone who played a major role in forming the coalition Government.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman said that that would be a helpful suggestion, but I am not sure that I agree with him.

Clive Betts: The right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the constitution and procedures of this House-probably better aware than anyone here-so surely he must have some concerns about the slightly ridiculous situation created by the possibility of a Minister coming to the Dispatch Box in the tuition fees debate to try to persuade the rest of the House to vote for a Government policy when he is not persuaded to vote for it himself.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that I have already dealt with. The coalition agreement is absolutely clear that on this particular issue Liberal Democrats are entitled to abstain.

Vernon Coaker: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the provision of speech and language therapy in schools? Dylan Scothern is a six-year-old autistic boy, the son of Rachel Scothern, a constituent of mine. Because he is six years of age, he has had speech and language therapy taken away from him on the basis that he is too old. That is clearly ridiculous. Whatever the situation, an autistic boy needs speech and language therapy. The decision to provide it only for children up to the age of five is nonsense, and Dylan deserves better than that.

George Young: Of course he does. I am not aware that there has been any change of policy by the coalition Government on this issue. I think that we are carrying forward the policy that we inherited, with which the hon. Gentleman may be familiar.

Tom Blenkinsop: Does the Leader of the House agree with the Speaker, who strongly deprecates the practice of late transfer of oral questions by Government Departments at late notice? If so, what action does he intend to take on this matter?

George Young: The answer to the question, "Do I agree with the Speaker?", is always yes. I should like to make some inquiries about the particular transfer to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If a question is transferred for good reason from one Department to another, then the Department to which it is transferred should reply promptly. If that has not happened, of course I will chase it up.

Valerie Vaz: BBC online news has reported the execution of Shahla Jahed in Iran after nine years imprisonment. Amnesty International said that there were flaws in the trial. May we have an urgent debate on women and human rights to discuss this case, and particularly that of Sakineh Ashtiani, who still remains under threat?

George Young: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I read today in the paper that tragic story of the execution and the circumstances in which it took place. There are real issues about human rights in Iran-the two cases to which she referred and many others. We have made constant representations to the Iranian embassy here and we are taking action through our European partners. I will of course raise her concern with my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to see whether there is any further action we can take.

Madeleine Moon: May we have a debate in Government time about the disgraceful practice of banks, particularly in relation to internet bank accounts, whereby they set up headline promises of high interest rates that are subsequently changed so that it is virtually impossible to find out what rate of interest one is now obtaining? Should not banks be required to display on their internet sites, when the statement comes up, what level of interest is being paid on the account so that people know when they should be moving to other interest-earning accounts?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is right. Many consumers have found that the high rate of interest they thought they were earning on their account has come to an end without their being notified. We had a debate on the banks, I think, on Monday. However, I will raise with Treasury Ministers whether we have any plans to increase transparency about the interest earned on current accounts.

Stella Creasy: Further to the answer that the Leader of the House gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop), I am delighted to hear that he agrees with the Speaker that the practice of late transfer of questions is despicable, and that they should be answered promptly. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport has decided to transfer questions on the impact of the abolition of school sport partnerships on participation in sport that were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland and were chosen in the ballot for answer this Monday. Furthermore, neither of us has received an answer from the Department for Education on this matter, or indeed a date when we can expect an answer. Will the Leader of the House therefore commit to coming back to the House with detailed explanations as to what he has done in talking to his colleagues about ending such practices?

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. My hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House was in the Chamber when the original point of order was raised. At his initiative, inquiries are now being undertaken to find out what has gone wrong, and we will report back to the House in the usual way.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the Leader of the House and to colleagues for their co-operation, as a result of which 35 Back-Bench Members were able, in a pretty constrained time scale, to pose questions to the Leader of the House.

Linda Norgrove

William Hague: With permission, I shall inform the House of the outcome of the investigation into the tragic death of the British aid worker, Linda Norgrove, who was taken hostage by insurgents in Afghanistan on 26 September, and who died during a US-led rescue operation on the night of 8 October.
	As I informed the House in my statement on 11 October, initial reports about the rescue suggested that Linda Norgrove's death was cause by the detonation of a suicide vest worn by one of her captors, but new information came to light on the morning of 11 October that called that account into question. The Prime Minister therefore agreed with the international security assistance force commander General Petraeus, and confirmed with President Obama, that a full US-UK investigation would be launched, reporting to General Mattis, commander of US central command, with a remit to investigate the operation itself, the inaccuracy of the original accounts and to make recommendations for the future.
	Today, I should like to update the House on the outcome of that investigation, but before I do so, I pay tribute to Linda Norgrove's family, who have shown inspiring strength, dignity and fortitude throughout their terrible ordeal. They, above all others, deserve to have the fullest account possible. Throughout the investigation, Foreign Office officials have been in close contact with the Norgrove family. Linda's parents, John and Lorna, were briefed yesterday on its outcome, and I met them this morning to discuss its findings.
	I shall now report how the investigation was conducted, the conclusions it reached and what action will now follow. However, I must first remind the House that Her Majesty's coroner for Wiltshire and Swindon is legally responsible for determining the cause of death, and my statement today must not in any way prejudice the course of his inquiries.
	The investigation team began work immediately, led by US Major-General Joseph Votel and British Brigadier Robert Nitsch. A 10-man investigative team worked for two and a half weeks in Afghanistan. It conducted interviews with all the personnel involved in the rescue attempt, and assessed hours of video evidence and hundreds of pages of documentary evidence. I am grateful to the investigation team for the thorough work it has done and for the willingness of our US allies to share their most sensitive operational information with us.
	We judged that Linda Norgrove's life was in grave danger from the moment she was abducted, and we feared that her captors would pass her higher up the Taliban chain of command or move her to more inaccessible terrain. We also judged that the only credible prospect of securing her release was through a rescue attempt, which is why I authorised such an attempt to be made.
	Locating and rescuing Linda Norgrove became the sole mission of approximately 1,000 US and Afghan forces, leading to significantly stepped-up activity in the region where it was believed she was being held. As a result of those intensive efforts, Linda's captors were tracked to two small groups of buildings high in the Dewagal valley in Kunar province, a region of steep mountain valleys and peaks ranging from 8,000 to 14,000 feet, which were accessible in most areas only by pack animal or by foot.
	On the night of 8 October, a rescue attempt was launched following analysis and surveillance of the area. The rescue force, chosen for its operational knowledge of the area, specialist training and experience in carrying out hostage rescue operations, set off in two separate helicopters. The operation took place during the night in total darkness. US forces were required to land on the near-vertical incline of a rugged mountainside, 8,000 feet in height, within a narrow valley, and to assault a series of buildings built in to the steep slope on several levels.
	On the basis of intelligence, analysis and surveillance, it was judged that Linda was being held in the upper group of two groups of buildings. One of the two teams of soldiers landed near the lower group of buildings. The team came under attack as soon as they left the helicopter. As the soldiers progressed towards those lower buildings, Linda Norgrove's captors came out and were engaged by the soldiers who were advancing on a narrow ledge and under threat. A grenade was thrown by a member of the rescue team-who feared for his own life and for those of his team-towards a gully from which some of the insurgents had emerged. When the grenade was thrown, no member of the team had seen or heard Linda Norgrove. All the actions that I have described so far took place within the space of less than a minute.
	The team moved on immediately to the other group of buildings higher up the mountainside, where it was believed Linda Norgrove was being held. It was when the team returned to the first location that it became apparent that Linda had been taken by her captors into the gully into which the grenade had been thrown, and where her body was now discovered. She was examined immediately by the team medics. The investigation team had access to the provisional post-mortem results, which concluded that Linda Norgrove died as a result of penetrating fragmentation injuries to the head and chest. After the investigation, it is clear that those injuries were caused by the grenade.
	This incredibly difficult operation was carried out with the utmost courage by elite US forces. The United Kingdom is grateful that they risked their own lives in the attempt to rescue Linda. They did so just as if she were one of their own. None the less, it is a matter of concern that the facts of how Linda Norgrove died were not made clear immediately after the operation was carried out. Initial reports suggested that she had died as a result of the detonation of a suicide vest because of the nature of the wounds found on the captor lying closest to her. The explosion observed was in line with the team's experience of suicide vests or other weaponry exploding. Although the US soldiers did report their own use of a grenade, it was not immediately reported up the military chain of command. It was only on later examination of the video footage that the possibility that a grenade was thrown became known to more senior officers.
	The investigation team found that the failure to disclose information that a grenade was thrown breached US military law. As a result, members of the rescue team have been disciplined for failing to provide a complete and full account of their actions in accordance with US military procedure. I cannot announce any more details of the disciplinary action taken by the military of another nation, but the fact that that action has been taken will confirm to the House how seriously the US authorities regard the matter.
	As a result of the investigation, the US military is reviewing post-operation procedures to ensure that the true sequence of events in such complicated operations is revealed earlier and more accurately than was the case on that tragic occasion. In the aftermath of a rescue operation in which a hostage died, the US military is conducting a number of other reviews of the tactics, techniques and procedures involved in hostage rescue operations. Senior British military officers have been briefed on the results of the investigation and will ensure that the lessons learned from the operation are shared.
	Following this statement, the US authorities will release their own statement on the outcome of the investigation, a copy of which I will place in the Library of the House. The coroner will now be able to conduct his inquest, which has been adjourned until the new year. Once he has issued his verdict, it will be possible for the investigating team to publish its findings, including judgments made by the investigators, but in advance of the coroner's verdict I cannot go into that greater level of detail.
	Linda Norgrove's death was a terrible tragedy. Her parents have paid tribute to her inspiring devotion to the people of Afghanistan and her love for the country. I believe that all in this House will have been moved by her example and her dedication. Her parents have set up a foundation in their daughter's name that will honour her memory and fund projects that support education and health for Afghan women and children, including scholarships to help Afghan women to go to university. The House will want to join me in paying tribute to all those working to support the people of Afghanistan in extremely difficult circumstances, and in sending our sincere condolences to Linda Norgrove's family, as they come to terms with their irreplaceable loss.

Yvette Cooper: I thank the Foreign Secretary for providing such a thorough statement today on such a tragic and difficult set of events, especially as he is constrained by the inquest procedures. I join him in sending our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Linda Norgrove and in paying tribute to Linda Norgrove's parents, John and Lorna Norgrove, who have acted with such great dignity and strength since the tragic death of their daughter. The House will want to wish well the Linda Norgrove Foundation, which they have set up to provide education and health and child care for women and families in Afghanistan, to continue the courageous and selfless work to which Linda Norgrove dedicated her life.
	I thank the Foreign Secretary for the details of his response today. Linda Norgrove's family have made it absolutely clear that they are grateful for the bravery and efforts of the US special forces who attempted to rescue her, and the whole House will agree with the Foreign Secretary's tribute to their bravery. We are grateful that they risked their lives to attempt to save Linda Norgrove.
	Operations such as the one launched by those US forces are of course high risk, and we must all recognise that success can never be guaranteed. The practicalities of that specific operation were especially difficult. I know that the House will also want to condemn utterly the actions of Linda Norgrove's kidnappers, who must take responsibility for putting her life at risk from the very moment of her kidnapping.
	We welcome the swift conclusion of the inquiry and not only the commitment of the US forces to investigate the events, but their readiness to involve senior British personnel in the inquiry. That point was raised when the Foreign Secretary made his first statement on the matter and I am grateful to him for taking it forward.
	It would be helpful if the Foreign Secretary would address a few further points about the inquiry's conclusions and the importance of the lessons that are being learned. He said in his statement that the special forces believed that Linda Norgrove was held in an upper group of buildings when in fact she was held in a lower area, in a gully. The operational conditions were clearly difficult, as he said, but will he tell the House whether the investigation examined the intelligence before the operation, or whether that will be done as part of the subsequent review? Can any lessons be learned?
	Will the Foreign Secretary tell us more about the grenade that was thrown, including about the practice of using such grenades in a rescue operation of this nature? Was that covered by the investigation, or will it be dealt with in the US forces' subsequent consideration of such cases? Again, will lessons be learned?
	The Foreign Secretary set out further information about why the facts did not emerge immediately, but it would be helpful if he would clarify part of his statement. He said: "Although the US soldiers did report their own use of a grenade, this was not immediately reported up the military chain of command." However, he also said that "failure to disclose information that a grenade was thrown breached US military law" and that members of the rescue team had been disciplined as a result. It was unclear from his statement whether the investigation concluded that the failure of information lay with the rescue team or the upward reporting processes. It would be helpful if he could give us clarity on the matter so that lessons can be learned.
	The Foreign Secretary is aware of the considerable concern and confusion that was caused by the inaccurate information that was disseminated in the immediate aftermath of Linda Norgrove's death. At the time of the previous statement, I raised concern about the early information that was given to journalists by the Foreign Office and the apparent level of certainty that was given in responses about suicide vests and in reply to journalists' questions about grenades. Although he has provided details of why incorrect information was held, may I press him further on the certainty in the responses, because clearly there must have been considerable uncertainty about the events at that time, given the difficulty of the operations? Will he say whether Government communications have been reviewed in light of that?
	Will the Foreign Secretary tell us how the outcome of the inquiry and the details of what he has said today came to be, regrettably, reported in  The Sunday Telegraph? I hope that that matter concerns him, given that the importance of accurate information has been at the heart of the case.
	This tragic case reminds us all of the dangers faced by those who work so bravely to support the people of Afghanistan. The civilian effort in Afghanistan, especially working on the ground with Afghans in rural areas, is crucial to finding and sustaining a political settlement and lasting stability in the country. We all want Linda Norgrove's work in Afghanistan to be continued, and we pay tribute to her work and that which other aid workers are doing today.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her questions and wider remarks. She joined me in paying tribute to Linda Norgrove's family and extending the House's condolences to them, for which I know that they will be appreciative. The Prime Minister hopes to meet them this afternoon, and he will be able to convey the heartfelt condolences from all quarters of the House.
	The right hon. Lady was right to pay tribute to the bravery of the forces involved who, as I said in my statement, operated in total darkness with no moonlight or artificial light of any kind. They disembarked directly into a hostile environment from helicopters that could not land because of the near-vertical nature of the terrain. She was also right to condemn those who were entirely responsible for this chain of events: the people who kidnapped Linda Norgrove and deliberately placed her in grave danger.
	As the right hon. Lady acknowledged, the United States has been ready to involve UK officers at a senior level. Our brigadier has had full access to all information and has been fully involved in the investigation, so we have truly had a joint UK-US investigation.
	The right hon. Lady was quite right to raise the report of the statement in  The Sunday Telegraph at the weekend. I strongly deprecate any advance leaks of, or revelations about, statements to the House, especially those about such a matter. I have made that absolutely clear within Whitehall and I appreciate her reinforcement of that point.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the initial information that we gave on the Saturday lunchtime after the rescue operation, when we said it appeared that Linda had died at the hands of her captors or due to the explosion of a suicide vest. We were clear about that because that was the unequivocal information that was given to the Government, and to our embassy and military in Afghanistan. Indeed, that was how senior US officers understood it. During our exchanges on the October statement, I think I said that if we err on the side of transparency, as we try to do in governmental matters these days, it can sometimes lead to apparent certainty. We made a correction as soon as possible. As soon as General Petraeus and his colleagues realised that an inaccurate account might have been given, he was straight on the telephone to No. 10 Downing street and the Prime Minister, and we immediately made a correction that morning. We will all reflect on the dilemma when balancing transparency and showing certainty. However, the Government gave the information that was available to them in good faith.
	The investigative team examined the surveillance and intelligence that was available before the operation, and it will make further comments about that in its final report, which will be published at the time of the coroner's verdict. However, as the House will understand, any details that would reveal how we gather intelligence will, of course, have to be withheld. Nothing in the investigative team's analysis contradicts the overall analysis that all of us involved came to, which was that the best chance-the only credible chance-for Linda Norgrove to return alive was to mount a rescue operation. However, the team has examined the use of intelligence and the belief that she was being held in a particular group of buildings distinct from the group where she was actually killed.
	It is hard for me to make further detailed comments about the use of a grenade without cutting across what the coroner might wish to pursue although, as I said in my statement, the investigative team will make further comments about that in its full report. We should be clear that it is not normal practice for special forces of the United States or the United Kingdom to use grenades-to employ explosive munitions-in a hostage rescue operation. Nevertheless, there are issues in this case about when a hostage rescue operation begins, because the troops involved believed that Linda Norgrove was being held in a different set of buildings from those around which they were fighting at the time a grenade was thrown. We have to understand that to be fair to all concerned.
	The right hon. Lady asked about responsibility for not giving information in a timely fashion. I think that I can go so far as to say that responsibility lay with the rescue team, but not its junior members. The disciplinary action has fully reflected the responsibility of the individuals identified by the investigative team as not having passed on information in a timely way.

Richard Ottaway: I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement, and join him and the shadow Foreign Secretary in paying tribute to the Norgrove family. The House will want time to digest the contents of the statement, but in the meantime, will my right hon. Friend say a little more about the procedure for authorising rescue attempts of this nature? He said that he had authorised such an attempt to be made. Was that part of a standard operating procedure, and did he actually give the order himself or did he delegate it to others?

William Hague: I gave the general authority for a rescue attempt to be made, based on the intelligence that we had received, which covered the intelligence and other information that we had received that gave rise to our fears that Linda Norgrove would be taken to more and more inaccessible places, and that she would be passed higher and higher up the Taliban chain of command. We were aware that her life was in grave danger at the time, and within a very short time after her kidnap. Based on that, the normal procedure is for the Foreign Secretary-in this case, with the knowledge and agreement of the Prime Minister-to give the authority for a rescue operation to take place, if he or she thinks that that is the right thing to do. It is also entirely common-and, as in this case, the normal procedure-for the actual details of such an operation to be worked out on the ground in Afghanistan by the forces involved, with a final go-ahead to be given by our representatives in Afghanistan, in this case in the British embassy. So that was the procedure involved.
	I would also stress that, in this case, all involved-the military commanders, the staff of our embassy in Kabul and everyone involved in COBRA here in London, as well as the Ministers involved-were clear that this was the best course of action. Risky as it was, the risks associated with inaction were greater. The procedure therefore involved an authority to proceed, which came from me, but with a final go-ahead based on the details cleared by our embassy in Kabul.

Angus MacNeil: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement about my constituent, Linda Norgrove. He will of course be aware that her parents, John and Lorna, have sought not to apportion blame but to find the truth. From the outset, at a time of great personal difficulty for them, they have publicly expressed their gratitude for the transparency and openness of the Americans, and indeed from UK diplomats as well. They are now greatly involved in continuing Linda's work, and I wonder whether the wider Foreign Office, and perhaps other Government Departments, could help by highlighting and helping the foundation and its website, lindanorgrovefoundation.org, which was set up by her parents and which aims to continue Linda's great humanitarian work for women, families and communities in Afghanistan.

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We will all want to support the foundation in different ways, and I particularly drew attention to it in my statement. It is inspiring that Linda's family have set up this foundation and are conducting this work for the future in memory of her life and work. There will be tremendous respect and enthusiasm for it across the House, and it is something with which the Government want to assist. Linda's parents have been to the Department for International Development this morning, after their meeting with me, to discuss how DFID might be able to assist with the work of the foundation. We will provide support where we can, in keeping with Government policy and the wishes of the family. The foundation will fund projects to support education and health for Afghan women and children, as I have said, and I think that it will serve as a fitting testimony to Linda Norgrove's dedication to the people of Afghanistan.

Roger Gale: On international volunteers day, does my right hon. Friend agree that it behoves all of us who are able to sleep soundly in our beds at night to remember that there is an army of volunteers and aid workers around the world who are placing themselves in harm's way and in grave danger and discomfort in the interests of humanity? Will he assure the House that his Department will do everything in its power to recognise the service and courage of those people, as exemplified by Linda Norgrove, and to ensure that they receive as much help as possible in their work?

William Hague: Yes, and my hon. Friend's question forms part of the recognition for which he calls. We often rightly pay tribute in the House to the work of our armed forces and the sacrifices that they make as they try to bring security and stability to Afghanistan, but we must never overlook the work of others, including the many voluntary workers and aid workers who are doing their utmost to give assistance in many different ways. They do so out of their humanity, bringing their expertise and compassion to the people of Afghanistan, and it is absolutely tragic that someone who was simply seeking to do that for the benefit of humanity should have ended up in those tragic circumstances, and the victim of such a tragic death. That is a reminder of the risks that those people run, and of the need to recognise their efforts, as my hon. Friend has suggested.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his decisiveness in making the very difficult decision to authorise this mission. Despite its outcome, that was clearly the right decision to make. May I urge him not to forget the wider context of all this? It is hugely impressive that ISAF managed correctly to identify where Linda was being held within days of her capture, and we came extremely close to liberating her. The actions of the military forces on the ground will act as a huge disincentive to other Taliban groups thinking of trying to do the same thing again.

William Hague: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes an important point. We should recognise that the operation came tantalisingly close to success. Linda Norgrove was located in very difficult terrain, and the troops managed to get very close to her, despite having to fight their way in. Nevertheless, it was a failed mission, because the hostage was killed. We have to be very clear about that, but we must not lose sight of the enormous expertise, skill and bravery that was involved even in getting to that point and enabling us to have any prospect of rescuing a hostage in those circumstances.

BACKBENCH BUSINESS
	 — 
	[12th Allotted Day]

Publication of Information about Complaints against Members

Lindsay Hoyle: For the convenience of the House, the three motions on standards and privileges will be debated together.

Kevin Barron: I beg to move,
	(1) That this House approves the Sixth Report of the Standards and Privileges
	Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 577; and
	(2) That accordingly-
	a. The Commissioner may publish papers relating to complaints rectified or not upheld since the beginning of financial year 2008-09 and information about complaints received and matters under investigation since the beginning of financial year 2010-11.
	b. Standing Order No. 150 be amended, by inserting the following new paragraph after paragraph 10.
	"(10A) The Commissioner shall have leave to publish from time to time-
	(a) information and papers relating to-
	(i) matters resolved in accordance with paragraph (3) of this order;
	and
	(ii) complaints not upheld;
	and
	(b) information about complaints received and matters under investigation."

Lindsay Hoyle: With this we will consider the following:
	Motion on the Power of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to Initiate Investigations-
	(1) That this House approves the Seventh Report of the Standards and Privileges
	Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 578; and
	(2) That accordingly Standing Order No. 150 be amended, by leaving out paragraph (2)(e) and inserting in its place:
	"(e) to investigate, if he thinks fit, specific matters which have come to his attention relating to the conduct of Members and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate subcommittee thereof, unless the provisions of paragraph (3) apply.
	(2A) In determining whether to investigate a specific matter relating to the conduct of a Member the Commissioner shall have regard to whether in his view there is sufficient evidence that the Code of Conduct or the rules relating to registration or declaration of interests may have been breached to justify taking the matter further."
	Motion on the Lay Membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges-
	That this House agrees with the principle as set out in the Twelfth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that lay members should sit on the Committee on Standards and Privileges; and invites the Procedure Committee to bring forward proposals to implement it.
	 [Relevant documents: The Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Session 2009-10, implementing the Twelfth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, HC  67 .]

Kevin Barron: I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing debating time for the three motions relating to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. It is right that they should be debated and I welcome the opportunity to answer any questions that hon. Members might have about them. All three motions relate to unfinished business from the last Parliament and, to that extent, they can be seen as a package. However, each is free-standing and I will speak to them in turn, in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.
	By agreeing to the first motion, the House will bring its publication policy on the complaints handling process into line with best practice. The current regime, which greatly limits what is published, no longer meets legitimate public expectations. Sections of the media have been able to portray the way in which less serious breaches of the rules are rectified as "secret deals". There has also been inaccurate reporting of who is, and who is not, under inquiry, and what they might be under inquiry for. By enabling the commissioner to publish the information, the House will ensure that it is both accurate and complete. The alternative is to leave us exposed to unfair allegations of cover-ups and to allow the media to continue to set the agenda for us, often on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information.
	Under the new policy, each month the commissioner will publish on his web pages statistical information about the number of complaints and self-referrals he has received, the number he has accepted, and the number he has not accepted. He will not publish the names of Members who have been the subject of complaints that he has not accepted for inquiry or the details of those complaints. To do so would be unfair and would encourage malicious complaints and publicity seekers. To put this into perspective, if the new policy had been in place in 2009-10, no details of the 245 complaints that were not accepted for inquiry would have been published. All that would have been published would have been the information on the 72 complaints that were inquired into.
	As for complaints that are accepted, each month the commissioner will list on his web pages inquiries that are under way, including in each case the name of the Member who is subject to the inquiry, with a brief description of the nature of the allegation and an indication of whether the inquiry is active or has for any reason been suspended. Other than in exceptional circumstances, which would have to be approved by the Committee, he will not publish other information about specific inquiries while they are under way. As our report makes clear, the commissioner already confirms or denies to inquirers that a complaint against a named Member is being investigated. The change will introduce consistency into a process that at the moment is random and largely media-driven.
	The commissioner will also publish on his web pages his determination letters on specific complaints or allegations that, after inquiry, have either not been upheld or have been rectified as soon as possible after they are produced. He will also publish relevant evidence he has received about such cases. In the Committee's view, it is in the best interests of the Member concerned and of the House that where evidence of a possible breach has been fully investigated but the allegation has not been upheld or the matter has been rectified with the commissioner's agreement, both the decision and the reasons for it should be made public.
	It is perhaps worth repeating that complainants-some of them politically motivated-have always been free to publicise the outcome of the commissioner's inquiry into a complaint that is either rectified or not upheld, but at a time and in a manner of their own choosing. That unregulated state of affairs will be replaced by one that is consistent and, I believe, fair and that is under the authority of the House. Publishing the information will help Members to set the record straight publicly and will go some way to redressing the balance.
	The motion also proposes that historical information going back to April 2008 should be published. I know that that has caused some concern, but the reason for backdating the information is to make it broadly consistent with other recent decisions of the House to introduce greater transparency. I remind the House that, contrary to what sections of the media have claimed, the commissioner's determinations are not secret. Much of it is already out there, although often in incomplete form, because complainants have always been free to publicise the outcome of their complaint. By allowing the commissioner to publish his determinations and the relevant evidence, the House will ensure that what is published is both accurate and complete. If the House supports the Committee's proposal, the commissioner will start to publish information on his web pages later this month.

Tony Lloyd: For the record, is my right hon. Friend in a position to tell the House how many of the complaints that the commissioner accepted for investigation resulted in a finding against the Member and how many were dismissed at that stage?

Kevin Barron: I quoted the figures from the commissioner's last annual report. During the time of the leaks,  The Daily Telegraph and everything else, 245 complaints were never followed up whereas 72 were. My hon. Friend will know that they were not necessarily all upheld, and in such cases the commissioner wants to say that in terms so that there can be no equivocation.
	The numbers that are investigated and the number of complaints that are not upheld are sometimes published by the commissioner, as my hon. Friend will know, through the commissioner giving a memorandum to the Committee and the Committee doing its own investigation on that basis and publishing it. All the information has been around in the House in one form or another for many years-since before I became a member of the Committee. I do not have the exact figure for the number of people among the 72 whose cases were followed up who were not found to have done anything wrong. If my hon. Friend is interested, I will try to get that figure from the commissioner, but we must recognise that the commissioner works independently from the Committee, although we have contact with him.
	The second motion seeks to implement a recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life-I think we used to call it the Kelly committee-that the commissioner should be able to carry out an inquiry without receiving a complaint. As my Committee's seventh report points out, that would bring the House's procedures into line with those of the House of Lords and of the compliance officer. It will also allow the commissioner to investigate a matter that has been reported on by the compliance officer and that raises code of conduct issues. For the first time, it makes proper provision for self-referrals, although they will continue to be subject to the Committee's agreement.
	There is a risk, as the report acknowledges, that giving the commissioner such a responsibility might raise public expectations that each and every allegation will be investigated or that the commissioner will turn into some kind of witchfinder-general. Let me make it clear that that is not going to happen. The Committee does not want it and the commissioner is not asking for it.
	The amendment to the Standing Order provides for the commissioner to inquire into
	"specific matters which have come to his attention".
	There is also a built-in requirement that there must be sufficient evidence of a possible breach of the code or rules to justify taking the matter further. In the 245 cases in the last annual report there was no evidence and they were not acted on. A lurid newspaper headline or unsubstantiated speculation will not lead to an inquiry. The process must be driven by the evidence and the evidence must come to the commissioner.
	It is important, as my Committee's report recognises, that the commissioner has the resources he needs to do his job. We supported the temporary expansion of his office to deal with the increase in the number of complaints over the past two years and, if necessary, we will do so again. However, there is no expectation that that will happen. The current work load is somewhat smaller than that of 12 months ago.

Bernard Jenkin: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for missing his opening remarks, but it was his subsequent remarks that I wanted to hear. Will the motion allow right hon. and hon. Members to make self-referrals, which we know the commissioner discourages?

Kevin Barron: It would do that. Self-referrals would carry on and, indeed, there has been one since the election. However, self-referrals will still have to come in front of the Committee and the commissioner will effectively ask permission, although we do not direct the commissioner by giving permission or telling him not to do things. He works independently of the Committee. Self-referrals will carry on in much the same way as they do at the moment.
	Of course we can all help to ensure that the commissioner has the resources to do his job by acting at all times in full compliance with the code of conduct and the associated rules. Members of this House decide what work loads are and whether treatment is fair or unfair by what we do on a regular basis.
	The third motion, tabled in the name of members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, was not on our original shopping list, but we are grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for adding it to today's business. It relates to a proposal that was put to Sir Christopher Kelly and the Committee on Standards in Public Life by our former Chair, now the Leader of the House, to add lay members to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The proposal was supported by the Kelly committee in its 12th report. Lay members already serve on the Members Estimate Audit Committee and they will soon sit on the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Lay members provide the public with reassurance that the Committees are not cosy gentlemen's clubs, where deals are stitched up and scandals are hushed up. They can also bring valuable outside experience and expertise with them. It is common practice for standards bodies dealing with the professions to have lay members, and in the view of the Committee on Standards and Privileges it should be the practice here too. I say that as a now former lay member of the General Medical Council; I spent nearly nine years in that role, sitting with various clinicians.
	That said, adding lay members to one of the House's senior Committees raises some important questions. For example, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the lay members should have full voting rights on the Standards and Privileges Committee. The question is whether that would mean that the lay members could vote on matters relating to privilege. I assume not. I know that the Clerk of the House has reservations about allowing lay members to vote at all, because he wrote to me about it following the publication of the motion. In practice, of course, we have to recognise that any decision of the Committee that was not supported by the lay members present would lack public credibility. It may be that the lay members will not need to have a formal vote to have a decisive influence.
	The Procedure Committee might wish to consider other questions identified in my Committee's report, such as how many lay members there should be and whether they should form part of the Committee's quorum. The Kelly committee suggested there should be two lay members, but a case can be made for more than two. I hope that the Procedure Committee will wish to consider that. We also suggested that lay members should receive modest remuneration, directly related to the volume of work that they carry out. We felt strongly that to provide the public with the greatest possible confidence in their appointments, the lay members should be appointed to the Committee but not by the Committee. The Procedure Committee may wish to consider what would be the best way of making the appointments, what qualifications those appointed should have, what should be the term of the appointments, and who should be involved in making them.
	My Committee's understanding until recently was that progress on the issue was being held up by the Government's work on their recall policy. However, a recent letter from the Leader of the House to Mr Speaker has put us right on that, and the House has now been given the green light to proceed. In the Committee's view, the best way forward is to ask the Procedure Committee to come up with some workable proposals for putting the matter into practice. It is an important reform and it needs to be got right.

Barry Sheerman: Many of us are very concerned about whether these three proposals will improve the system's ability to ensure that justice is done for people who are referred to my right hon. Friend's Committee. We feel strongly that over the past two or three years, the way in which people have been referred to his Committee has been partial. Some have been referred and a report made, leading to a prosecution by the police. Others have never had the opportunity to put their case before the Committee. Will these three changes bring some sense of justice back to what goes on?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Interventions have got to be shorter.

Kevin Barron: Only one referral of the nature that my hon. Friend sets out has happened in my five years on the Committee, and the matter is out of the Committee's hands. My understanding is that it happens elsewhere and is not done by the Committee. As I emphasised earlier, there has to be an evidence base for any complaint that is taken up and investigated by the commissioner. The last annual report showed that 245 cases had not been pursued because there was no evidence, but that 72 had been, although some of the Members involved will have been found to have done nothing wrong. I commend the motions to the House.

David Heath: I am grateful, as I am sure the House is, to the Standards and Privileges Committee for its work in the last Parliament, to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and to the current Chair and members of the Standards and Privileges Committee who have tabled the motions. I am grateful also to the Backbench Business Committee for providing this time today. These are the first substantive motions that have arisen from a Select Committee report to be considered on a Back-Bench day, and the Government are frankly delighted that the House can now make progress on House matters without first requiring a ministerial seal of approval. Should the motions be agreed to, they will prove that Parliament no longer needs to look to Government for help in putting its house in order, but has the independence, power and political will to do so of its own volition.
	The Government fully support the three motions in the name of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron). On the publication of information about complaints against Members, the failure to publish details of rectification has clearly led to some negative stories that have tarnished the House's reputation. The lesson from the last Parliament is that openness is the only way to allay public unease and suspicion. The process of rectification is typically used when the commissioner is satisfied that the Member concerned has made an entirely honest mistake, acknowledged the mistake, apologised and repaid any money that was wrongly claimed. Publishing the information will briefly embarrass the Member concerned, but withholding it would be damaging for the whole House in the longer term.
	I wish to make one point for the record that I hope the commissioner will bear in mind. As those who have been under investigation can testify, the knowledge that a Member is under investigation can itself damage their reputation. That can be exacerbated by the length of time that an inquiry can take-sometimes well over six months. That results in some people concluding that if it is taking that long, something must be up. To mitigate the problem, it would be sensible for the commissioner to be equally open about the process of investigation, for example by providing details of when it began and where the Member has reached in the queue for investigation. That would go some way to ensuring that while we create a more transparent approach, Members are not subjected to open season by political opponents.

Barry Sheerman: May I renew my plea that, after the reforms come in, we must not have a situation such as in the past, when some people have seemed to get a full investigation and some have been referred to the police? All of us who were in the House remember the cases of Ian Gibson and others whom we believed were not given real justice, either by the Standards and Privileges Committee or in what happened to them subsequently. Has anybody trawled back through what happened to those people, and assessed which parts were correct procedure and which were not?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened on the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee on that point, and I really do not think it is a matter for Government. It is most important that it should not be. We must have a process that is just to all concerned, but equally rigorous for all concerned. When there have been instances in which Members have sadly fallen far short of what is required not just by the rules of the House but by the rules that apply to any other citizen in the United Kingdom, it is right that investigations should take place elsewhere.

Barry Sheerman: I am not asking the Government to do anything; I am merely asking that we all reflect on the fact that those of us who were in the House before the election know that some cases were taken up and others, which we thought were even worse, were not taken up. That is the point-justice was not done on an even basis. If the three motions today will set that right, I will be happy with them. If they do not do that, I will be very unhappy.

David Heath: I do not think that I can add anything to what I have already said. This is a matter for the Standards and Privileges Committee and for the commissioner, and certainly not a matter for a Minister at the Dispatch Box to comment on, other than to say that I hope that justice will always be done in the most transparent way.

Kevin Barron: I have two points to make in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). First, I do not believe that Ian Gibson ever went to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or in front of the Committee. Secondly, on a wider matter, discussions are currently taking place between the compliance officer, the commissioner and others on a memorandum of understanding about referrals, and whether cases will go to different organisations rather than to the commissioner and then on to the Committee.

David Heath: That is a very helpful intervention, and of course the landscape has changed since a year or so ago. We now have the compliance officer in IPSA, who is responsible for investigating some matters. Having that memorandum of understanding seems to me a very positive way forward.
	I mentioned the time that investigations sometimes take and the adverse effect that that may have on a Member's reputation. As I said, it would be sensible for the commissioner to be open about the process of an investigation, such as when it began and where a Member had reached in the queue, to ensure that we have a more transparent approach. It is also important that Members know at the first opportunity that a matter relating to them is under investigation. It should never be the case that a Member hears that from the press or from a political opponent.
	The Government support the move to give the commissioner a power to initiate investigations, which, to an extent, ties up a process started by the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. Without that power, the commissioner would not be able to act on referrals from the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority compliance office. That would clearly be unsatisfactory, because the House would not be able to take action against a Member who had knowingly submitted an improper expenses claim. However, this issue goes wider than that; it is absurd that allegations about a Member's conduct can be splashed all over the newspapers, yet the commissioner is powerless to investigate unless he receives a complaint from a member of the general public. That is an unnecessary hurdle. If we can trust the commissioner to use his good judgment to carry out investigations, we can trust him to decide when to initiate them.
	Finally, the Government support the principle, first advocated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, that the Standards and Privileges Committee should be strengthened by the presence of lay members. Although that is ultimately a matter for the House, the Government take an interest, given the commitment in the coalition agreement to establish a right to recall Members who have been found guilty of serious wrongdoing. There is obviously a potential role for that Committee in the process of adjudication on recall cases, and the presence of members from outside Parliament will help to build people's confidence in our system of internal compliance. In supporting that, we note the concerns expressed by the Clerk of the House, to which the Chairman of the Committee referred, that if lay members are given full voting rights, they might not enjoy the protection of privilege or their presence might compromise the Committee's position based on privilege in respect of judicial review. The Procedure Committee will want to look particularly closely at that, while the Government will be taking a close interest as part of the ongoing work on the draft parliamentary privilege Bill.

Bernard Jenkin: I am very grateful that my hon. Friend has addressed the question of privilege and lay members, and I am grateful for the Government's measured and sensible response to this approach. However, does it not begin to advance the argument in favour of having a standards committee that is separate from a privileges committee? If there really are two functions that require lay members to be involved in one function and not the other, should we not have two separate committees, permanently? I shall discuss that in my remarks later.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and that is another matter that the Procedure Committee needs to examine carefully. I hope that it will take full account of the recommendations that the Standards and Privileges Committee has already made on this subject, particularly on the separation of standards cases, where lay members will have a role to play, and privilege cases, which should rightly remain the exclusive business of the House. The Procedure Committee will wish to examine whether that requires two committees or the Standards and Privileges Committee meeting in a different form, with different arrangements for the two classes of consideration.
	The Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee makes the important point that lay members would not necessarily require full voting rights, as long as it clearly states in the Committee's reports whether the lay members supported the conclusions and recommendations of the rest of the Committee. That imprimatur is the important aspect in determining whether the Committee's response not only has credibility, but is seen to have credibility by all those who are interested in the matter.

Barry Sheerman: Is the hon. Gentleman absolutely sure about all this? This is a very important point, because in his earlier remarks he said that the Government should not be involved, but he subsequently said that the recall element meant that they should be involved. The recall element is very important. Can a Member be recalled only when they have been through the Committee and been found wanting? What about Members of this House who were prosecuted, never having had the opportunity to go through-

Kevin Barron: indicated  dissent .

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend is shaking his head, but people were prosecuted, and people are being prosecuted, without having gone through the Standards and Privileges Committee process; they were just taken down to the police station and charged. Where is the equality there? Do we have recall in both Houses or both-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have to be very careful that we do not get into matters that are sub judice. I know that the hon. Gentleman was careful in what he said, but we are drifting into an area that we need to keep away from.

David Heath: I shall be equally careful not to enter that area, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have yet to introduce our proposals on the powers of recall; those will be in future legislation. Obviously this matter will be under consideration when we draw up the proposals for that Bill. Clearly, there is the potential for a trigger to reside with the consideration of the Standards and Privileges Committee or in a court decision. The House will have to determine that in due course. We also hope to introduce a Bill on the matter of privilege. Again, we will have to take great care to understand the points made by hon. Members in this debate and in others, and the response of the House in its decisions. We will have to ensure that we have covered, as far as is possible, any points raised on the matter of the draft legislation on privileges, which we anticipate introducing at a later stage.

Mark Field: Will the Minister give an assurance on the Floor of the House today that, whatever the Government come up with on the recall of Members of the House of Commons, there will be a parallel process for those from the other House who offend? Clearly they cannot be recalled, because they are appointed through a process of patronage rather than elected by the public. Can he assure us that they will also be held to account, in a way that they palpably have not been on their expenses scandals, which I suspect are still at a relatively early stage?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. Again, I do not want to pre-empt draft legislation that has not yet been put before the House and is under consideration. As he knows, an all-party body is considering the matter of House of Lords reform, but I believe that I can, without betraying any confidences, say that it is very much in our thoughts that there has to be a process of recall for both Houses of Parliament, and for other senior elected offices, which is broadly compatible. What we should not have is a different regime in different circumstances where wholly different considerations apply. If the public are to have a power of recall, it must be applicable to senior decision-making positions in elected office across the piece. I believe that that would include the upper House but, as I say, it is not for me to pre-empt the draft Bill that I hope will be before the House early next year.

Barry Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. How can we make a decision about this important aspect today, given that the Minister has just told us that the Government have not even decided what they are going to do about recall, or whether recall can be sparked off through the Standards and Privileges Committee or through a criminal case? What sort of rule is this?

Lindsay Hoyle: In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has raised a point, but it is not a point of order and the House is debating the issue .

David Heath: There is nothing about recall in the motions put before us by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley-

Barry Sheerman: You brought it up.

David Heath: I responded to a point raised in debate. I am attempting to help the right hon. Member for Rother Valley and his Committee put matters before the House and indicate that the Government support his view. I am very happy to rest my position on that point.

Barry Sheerman: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that, unintentionally, the Minister is misleading the House because-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to withdraw that remark.

Barry Sheerman: Mr Deputy Speaker, I said-

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not having the hon. Gentleman say that the House is being misled.

Barry Sheerman: Mr Deputy Speaker, I said "misleading" but the Minister did not mean to mislead the House. However, he did say that he was responding to an intervention-he was not; he mentioned the recall problem during part of his speech.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is not a point of order, but the hon. Gentleman has certainly got on the record the point that he wanted to make.

David Heath: Actually, I think the matter was referred to by the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee.

Kevin Barron: What I said in my speech was that we thought that the question of lay members serving on the Standards and Privileges Committee was being held up because of the likelihood of a recall Bill. The reason the motion is on the Order Paper today is that it is about having lay members on the Committee-certainly in respect of standards-so that people can have more confidence that the Committee is not about gentlemen or gentlewomen looking after other gentlemen and gentlewomen.

David Heath: I thank the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee for making that clear. We have had enough of this House appearing to be a cosy club for its own benefit. The previous Parliament took steps towards improving the situation. What we are debating today is a continuation of that process, and I commend it to the House.

Helen Jones: Let me begin, as the Deputy Leader of the House did, by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and his Committee, as well as its predecessor Committee, for the considerable amount of work they have done on these issues. They are difficult issues for the House to grapple with, and we want to get the detail right. That view is widely shared across the House. It is good that we are debating these motions today, because hon. Members can be reassured about any issues that they want to raise.
	We on the Opposition Front Bench support all the motions. We believe that greater transparency will help the House in future and alleviate any fears that the public might have about our being a cosy little club. That is important in increasing public confidence in the procedures of the House, and it will also be to the long-term benefit of hon. Members. However, I have one or two queries that I want to put to my right hon. Friend that I hope he will be able to deal with when he winds up.
	The first motion would allow the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to publish papers relating to complaints that have either not been upheld or been dealt with through the rectification process. My right hon. Friend is quite right that the current practice-whereby the commissioner publishes details on the number and type of complaints received in his annual report, along with details of outcomes-does not give sufficient information to the public. His Committee has pointed out that the commissioner responds if he is asked whether a complaint about a particular individual has been received. The Committee has given good reasons for the change that it proposes today. However, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend elaborated a little on why it decided to introduce an element of retrospection. He said that the proposal would bring the complaints procedure into line with practices that have been adopted elsewhere in the House. However, I am sure that he would agree that this raises the possibility of complaints that have long been dealt with being reopened, through the media and other means, and often where Members have left the House. I hope that when he sums up this debate he will elaborate on exactly how his Committee considered that point, and on why it came down on the side that it did.
	There is also an issue, which I am sure my right hon. Friend will recognise, about publishing evidence on complaints that have not been upheld. He was right to say that on many occasions that will assist hon. Members, by showing that the complaint against them was completely unfounded. However, there is also a risk that the whole affair will be reopened. I wonder whether he could elaborate on what kind of evidence the commissioner will publish on such occasions, and on how he will decide what should be published and what should not.
	For those under investigation, the need for transparency has to be balanced with their right to a fair consideration of the complaint against them, as it would be in any walk of life. The House is no different in that respect from anywhere else. However, the reputational damage that can be caused to a Member, even where a complaint is not upheld, is considerable. Given that the commissioner has always recognised that a Member's reputation should not be risked without proper cause, and given that he has also noted that there is a spike in complaints in the run-up to a general election, will my right hon. Friend say what consideration his Committee gave to that question? Could the Committee and the commissioner together develop a code of practice on what can be published in the run-up to a general election, so as to avoid a huge rise in politically motivated complaints that are not upheld, but made purely so that someone's opponent can issue newsletters saying, "MP X is under investigation by the Standards and Privileges Committee"?

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is a highly trained lawyer, but, for those who are worried about the proposal, let me say that we believe in transparency-we campaigned for a better system-but we also want that balance, with justice for all Members, so that they are treated in a fair and democratic way.

Helen Jones: I am a lawyer, but I am not sure that I am a highly trained one-I am certainly a very out-of-practice one. I recognise that my hon. Friend has a long record on campaigning for more transparency, but there is always a balance to be struck between the need for fairness to those under investigation and the need for transparency. We all recognise that it is not necessarily easy to draw the line. The Committee has done an excellent job in trying to make proposals that achieve the right balance, but it is not always easy. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will consider that point about the run-up to a general election, which is a consideration for Members in all parts of the House.
	The second motion would give the commissioner the power to initiate an investigation. That sensible move might increase the access to justice that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) mentioned, because it would allow the commissioner to look at things that are perhaps aired in public, but not necessarily referred to him. I know, too, that there has been some concern among hon. Members about allowing the commissioner to act pursuant to a finding by the compliance officer of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. That is not because hon. Members do not want there to be a compliance officer; it is because there is some concern about the procedures adopted by IPSA. However, I understand-I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will confirm it-that it will still be for the commissioner to decide whether there is a case to answer, according to the same standards that he applies now, when he considers whether the rules of the House have been breached. I hope that that provides some reassurance to hon. Members.
	The final motion will probably present us with the most difficulties. We are being asked to agree in principle to two lay members being appointed to the Standards and Privileges Committee. We support that move, but there is no doubt that if the House agrees the motion, there will still be a lot of work to be done. The Committee on Standards in Public Life said that lay members should be chosen through what it called
	"the official public appointments process".
	Much as we love the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and much as we acknowledge that its knowledge of the rules of the House is deep and abiding, the problem is that none of us knows exactly what the official public appointments process is, because it differs according to which organisation one is dealing with. Therefore, we will first need the Procedure Committee to look at appointments. However, I hope that we do not get another round of the same, small coterie of the great and the good being appointed. There is a quangocracy out there, and I personally would like members of the public who have not previously been involved to be appointed.

Charles Walker: What is certain about the recruitment process is that we will have head-hunting firms earning a lot of commission from the taxpayer. That is causing a number of people in this place a great deal of concern.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. When the Procedure Committee looks at the issue, I hope that we will be able to avoid that. With great respect to all the ladies and gentlemen who serve on many committees, I do not want to see the usual suspects. I would like to see people who have not been involved before and who bring an entirely different perspective.

Bernard Jenkin: The third motion concerns by far the most contentious matter before the House this afternoon. As Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, which is responsible for the public appointments commissioner, I can attest to the fact that what the hon. Lady is saying is absolutely correct. I do not think that Whitehall is the model of how to make public appointments, and in any case there comes a point where, even if we are bringing lay members into House, it should be this House that appoints them, not necessarily ex-civil servants who do not understand how the House works.

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point and he brings a lot of expertise from the Public Administration Committee. Having battled for many years to get more people from the most health-deprived or socially deprived areas of my constituency appointed to health trusts and as magistrates, I have great sympathy for the points he makes. I hope that the Procedure Committee will take those remarks on board and consider different ways of finding lay members to assist the House.

Barry Sheerman: Many of us on the Back Benches could be persuaded of the value of lay members, but the House is a strange place with a strange culture, so local knowledge is needed. Anyone who believed that what had happened to Members in the past 18 months or two years did not depend on the Whips and party leadership would have to think again.

Helen Jones: As a former Whip, I would have to say that the Whips always act in the best interests of those whom they serve and that they are known for their understanding, kindness and gentleness. However, my hon. Friend makes a fair point. Whoever is appointed will need induction into the rules and procedures of the House, just as Members need that induction when we first arrive here. The Procedure Committee could consider that.
	One issue to consider is whether the lay members would have voting rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley made a fair point when he said that any decision that was not supported by the lay members would not be trusted by the public. Previously, his Committee has assumed that those voting rights would be confined to issues of standards and not to privileges. Perhaps we should consider splitting the Committee in dealing with those very different issues.
	Another possible problem has been pointed out by the Clerk: lay members might not be covered by privilege when they take part in a Committee investigation. If that is the case, the House will face the difficult decision of whether to extend qualified privilege to non-Members. That would have huge implications for the future business of the House and would have to be considered very carefully by the Procedure Committee, who are the right people to do so. I have absolute faith that the Committee would consider the issue in detail, but I suspect that the inquiry would be long and comprehensive. The Committee already has a number of issues to deal with, so we are giving it a great deal more work, but it is most fitted to undertaking that work. These are matters for the House. I know that hon. Members want to be satisfied on a number of issues before we vote on them, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will respond to some of those issues when he sums up. We commend the motions to the House.

Peter Bottomley: One of these three issues-ensuring that resources are available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards-is vital. It is a tragedy and a disgrace to the House that we did not do this when Elizabeth Filkin was the commissioner. There is not enough time to go back over all that now, but the House does not have a very good or consistent record.
	The question of whether lay members will have privilege should not be too difficult. Presumably, we extend privilege to the commissioner, so we ought to be able to extend it in the same way. I do not have a view on whether we should go for a sub-committee of Members only to deal with privilege issues. I shall not argue against the proposal on lay members, but I note that the provision that they cannot have been a Member of Parliament before would exclude someone such as Martin Bell who would be eminently qualified to be a lay member, but that might be the rough justice we will have. I suspect that if there were lay members, we could avoid hon. Members having the dilemma that he and I faced when we were members of the Privileges and Standards Committee and agreed, in one or two cases that we considered, to use the criminal burden of proof rather than the balance of probabilities. I think that we made a mistake; I think he acknowledged that in a book and I am perfectly willing to say now that we did make a mistake. Again, however, the reasons behind that are not for discussion today.
	Paragraph 25 of the Privileges and Standards Committee's HC 67 report says that the Committee had "read with some concern" the suggestion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that
	"MPs should be required to register positions of responsibility in voluntary or charitable organisations, even if unpaid, together with an indication of the amount of time spent on them."
	Bluntly, I would ask that Committee why not spend more time looking at what MPs do in our job rather than what we do with our spare time? In my time at Parliament, I have been a trustee of Christian Aid, chairman of the Church of England Children's Society, a member of the council of Mind-previously the national association for mental health-and a member of the council of Nacro. I have also been involved with other, less nationally prominent, organisations. I do not think that I would have accepted the invitations to take those positions if I had thought that I would have to log the amount of time I spent going to and at meetings, and I doubt whether I would have taken on the position of being parliamentary warden of St Margaret's at Westminster. There is a whole range of issues on which that Committee ought to wake up, and if it wants to take advice from me publicly or privately I shall offer it.

Bernard Jenkin: Is not the corollary of that recommendation that an MP who went on a holiday to learn how to paint watercolours would have to fill in a form and register it because that would be time spent not as an MP but doing an unpaid extracurricular activity? Why not register everything we do not do for Parliament in our spare time?

Peter Bottomley: I think my hon. Friend makes the point that if we registered what we did not do we would probably have a longer list than if we registered what we did do. The key point is that the general aim of having transparency matters.
	The first of the motions introduced by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) concerns publication. During my time in Parliament, there have been two or three cases in which I have been rather proud of my approach to them and the persistence I maintained. However, two of them ended up with accusations being made against me of being a paedophile, one of which was swallowed by a national newspaper, which published in 2 million copies a case against me. If a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards took media attention as a basis for starting an investigation, I would object. As it happened, in that case, no other newspaper copied the allegation, and the first settled, at pretty heavy expense to it, and made a damages payment. I wish those events had not happened, but the case involved people whom I had upset. They were bad, mad or sad; I was bold and pretty decisive, and there ended up being a series of allegations against me.
	In a second case, a constituent whom I had helped complained to the commissioner that I had taken obscene photographs of his children. The commissioner found that there was no case to look into, but if that person had gone to the papers and they had run the story as they normally would, under the current arrangements the commissioner would have had to look into it. We have to be aware of such dangers. We cannot legislate against all possibilities, but we have to be careful about saying that just because there has been media attention, the commissioner should get involved.

Charles Walker: I hope that the person who made that allegation was investigated by the police and faced the full force of the law, because that is outrageous.

Peter Bottomley: That may be, but the issue is that it was done and that the people who do such things are not always thinking straight. That is not my problem. The issue is that the commissioner should be very careful about taking the decibels as a reason for launching an investigation.

Tony Lloyd: First, I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the House, both of whom have a deserved reputation for courtesy, made a big mistake when they tried to take these matters through without debate. The very fact that we have had this debate is evidence that it is important to take such matters on the Floor of the House. I hope that that point will be taken on board by the business managers who allocate time on the Floor of the House.
	These important matters reflect on and affect the public view of us individually and collectively as Members of Parliament. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley) for his remarks. The examples he gave indicated the serious problems that Members can face when people, for whatever reasons, bring charges against them that leave those Members-owing to the nature of their public role-at least with difficulties defending themselves. It is important that our procedures reflect the gravity of that situation.
	I want to make a few points for my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) to take back to his Committee, about whose reports the House needs reassurance-although I am not saying that they represent the wrong direction of travel. We need reassurance that there is recognition of the important implications of the new procedures. My first point relates to the commissioner now putting it into the public domain when Members are under investigation. That may or may not be the right thing to do, but we should recognise that it will increase enormously the pressure on those Members. In practice, that is not necessarily in line with procedures used by other investigatory authorities. However, given that the commissioner has adopted the practice of responding to freedom of information requests, it might be better for Members if all such incidents were in the public domain.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) made a serious point: this procedure could be used, in the run-up to an election, in a deliberate attempt to sully the reputation of Members of Parliament seeking re-election. We have to guard against that. I hope that the Committee and the commissioner will reflect on today's exchange and consider whether a code of practice can be devised to prevent those who go beyond the bar of frivolity and necessitate an investigation from being able to use that procedure to sully a Member's reputation in a pre-election period. This is not a trivial matter; it matters to people standing for election who might later find themselves exonerated by the commissioner.
	That is why I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley whether he could give us the number of people who, having been investigated by the commissioner, were found not guilty. It is important that that information is in the public domain, because it gives us the context and allows us to recognise whether this is a serious problem of which we need to be aware, or whether it is simply in the realms of the theoretical. As he said, some 240 cases were dismissed for having insufficient evidence. Quite rightly, of course, those did not enter the public domain, because the commissioner ruled them inadmissible for investigation. However, it is unlikely that all the 72 cases taken forward will be found to warrant action by the commissioner or the Committee. This issue matters. It is important that we get the balance right and that the commissioner reflects on the need to give consideration to that pre-election period and the capacity for people to use this procedure not only frivolously, but with a political purpose.
	I want to make a second point to my right hon. Friend. If the commissioner is now to be given the power to initiate investigations-I understand the arguments for why it should be given-it will be critical to be cognisant of the need to prevent either the present commissioner or future commissioners from simply engaging in what in the past have been described as fishing expeditions. Again, this matters, and it is important that the House has reassurance. My right hon. Friend's Committee has an important role in ensuring that when the commissioner reports to it, it engages in a reasonably robust dialogue with him on the relevance of such commissioner-led investigations, to ensure that the commissioner sets a proper test or standard before taking on such a role.
	My final point relates to lay members. I have considerable sympathy with the point made by the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), about the need to recognise the distinction between standards and privilege. It is important that we know in what role and capacity the lay members will be appointed. I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North that we need to ensure that we do not simply replicate the appointment to these public roles of people from traditional backgrounds. We need to ensure that the establishment is not once again put in a position to do things that are not only not in the interest of the House, but not in the interest of the wider public. We must ensure that we have a robust Parliament and MPs who can operate robustly when considering matters of standards and privileges.

Bernard Jenkin: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) about how we choose the lay members. The House has fallen into the habit of finding people seen to be more respectable than we are in order to resolve some of the difficulties that have arisen. Inevitably, they turn out to be former permanent secretaries, but with the greatest respect to those eminent people, they are seen as more respectable only because they have not been exposed in public life to the extent that many of us in public life have been.

Helen Jones: Continuing the debate about who should be appointed, does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the problems we have encountered-we will see this in the debate later on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-is that civil servants tend to want to fit everyone else into the civil service mode, and often do not understand the work of a Member of Parliament?

Bernard Jenkin: I wholly agree with that point, and it fits with the one I am trying to make, which is that their perspective is necessarily a different one, owing to their long and distinguished experience. Very often-it has to be said-Parliament will have been, throughout their careers, perhaps a matter of great frustration to them, and they might well share the feeling of many others about how poorly the House has done its jobs in various ways over the years. I do not think, therefore, that they necessarily have the right perspective-they have one perspective, but it cannot be solely the right perspective. We have to take their recommendations gratefully and humbly, but add a wider perspective to them to give them life.
	On the question of adding lay members to a Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), who moved the motion, gave examples of where lay members have been added to other committees. However, those are not parliamentary committees and are not, for example, subject to the question of privilege, and it is on parliamentary privilege that I wish to make three brief points. First, there are members of the judiciary and senior figures in public life who have served elsewhere in public life who are either careless of the question of parliamentary privilege or actually could not care less about parliamentary privilege.
	The word "privilege" carries certain overtones. At one stage before the election, it went out to the Conservative party that we should not use that word, because it would be misunderstood and seem to relate to the then Leader of the Opposition's education. In fact, every Parliament in the world of any distinction enjoys some measure of privilege or immunity in order that those Members can do their job. The reason we had the Bill of Rights in 1689 was to enable the House to function, and we still need those privileges, that protection and those immunities. We hold those immunities not for ourselves and the protection of our own persons or private interests, and not to protect us from the criminal law if we commit criminal offences-as we have just discovered in a recent case-but so that we can advance the interests of the country freely and without fear or favour. These are the people's privileges. I urge the Procedure Committee, as it considers this matter, to accept the advice of the Clerk of the House. Let me, for the second day on the trot, quote from a note from the Clerk. Referring to the role of lay members on the Committee, he made it clear that he did not comment on the merits of the proposal itself, which I personally welcome, but he also said:
	"It is not clear to me that their participation in decision-making by voting is in fact covered by parliamentary privilege. At the very least the matter is questionable and therefore may be justiciable."
	Until that matter has been comprehensively and categorically resolved, it would be sensible for the Procedure Committee to recommend that if the Standards and Privileges Committee is to have lay members, they should not be voting members.
	I imagine that it would be extremely hard for the Standards and Privileges Committee to ignore the advice of the lay members, particularly if they are as eminent as I hope they will be. I very much hope that one of them will be a retired judge, for example. I think that it would greatly assist the functioning of the Committee to receive more legal advice, so that it could interpret the byzantine rules and regulations and be navigated through difficult, contentious issues of evidence and fairness. After all, that is what the Committee is about. It would be very difficult to ignore the advice of a retired judge, whether he had a vote or not.
	Secondly, I should be interested to know how often votes take place on the Committee. Never? I see a shaking head.

Peter Bottomley: Not never, but not frequently.

Bernard Jenkin: My hon. Friend says "Not never, but not frequently", and I observed the right hon. Member for Rother Valley shaking his head.
	It would be awful if decisions were split on some of the contentious cases that we are discussing. The voting is not really relevant, and I think that it can be set aside until the question of the privileges of the House has been resolved.
	We keep running up against the question of privilege. The arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) led to a protracted argument about it. The case relating to privilege has just been resolved-I recognise that other cases are sub judice under the criminal law, so I will not comment on them-but resolving it took months. If we had had a more watchful Privileges Committee entirely devoted to the question, we could have forestalled all that. More to the point, if we got on with the parliamentary privileges Bill that everyone agrees we need, we could put the question of privileges on a much less contentious and disputed footing.
	That is my third point. When will we have a parliamentary privileges Bill, so that we can resolve some of these issues? Australia has enacted such a Bill, as have other Commonwealth countries. It is time that we stopped resting on the 1689 Act, which is increasingly irrelevant in this information age whose media are so different from those of the past. Parliamentary privilege has to contend with many issues that were not conceived in those days. It is time we updated the Bill of Rights with a parliamentary privileges Act, and I hope that the Procedure Committee will consider that.
	I also think that we should have a Select Committee on parliamentary privilege, separate from the Standards and Privileges Committee. As soon as a big issue arises, what happens? Following the arrest of the hon. Member for Ashford, it was immediately agreed-somewhat insultingly-that the existing Committee was not up to the job, and that much grander and more important panjandrums would have to be placed on a separate Committee to consider the issue of privileges. I think we had better recognise that the two functions are different. The fact that lay members will be involved with one aspect of the work of the Standards and Privileges Committee and not the other underlines the fact that there are two separate functions, and that they should be undertaken by two separate Committees. I very much hope that that will be one of the Procedure Committee's recommendations.

Heather Wheeler: As I am a member of the Committee, I thought it sensible to sit through the debate and hear all the views that have been expressed. I am a new Member, and I am not used to hearing about issues such as byzantine rules and regulations. We need T-shirts with that written on them, do we not?
	The work that we have been doing over the past few weeks has built on the Kelly report, which I find fascinating. I am very pleased that the House is dealing with these three motions. We have received indications from both Front Benches that there is complete agreement with them. The Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), made an excellent opening speech broadening the issues with which we have all been dealing in the Committee, and I am sure that he will discuss the comments that have been made when he winds up the debate.
	I have found it difficult to deal with the cases that have come before the Committee and the complaints that we have been considering. We have taken advantage of the experience of the commissioner, who is upstairs in the Gallery-I am noting his beady eyes every second-and the work is very interesting, but what is most important is that the public are aware of the complaints that are received, the statistics about complaints that have absolutely no validity, and the decisions made by our Committee. It is also important that the House is confident that the Committee deals with complaints properly-and we do try.

Kevin Barron: The hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley) spoke of media headlines serving as reasons for investigation. That is not the case now, and it will not be the case in future. Investigations are not made on the basis of media headlines; they are made when the commissioner is provided with evidence and he or she is satisfied that there are grounds for examining, for instance, a potential breach of the code of conduct.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) discussed rectification, which involves two issues. Rectification sometimes takes place on the basis that the individual concerned has been found to have done no wrong, but, as I explained, it does not always take place in a right and proper way. It may take place in a very ill-informed way, and a complainant who has done no wrong can still go to the media and say "Yes, but...". I think it eminently sensible to improve that process of rectification.
	When people have done wrong and have admitted doing wrong, rectification has been the right and proper thing to do from the commissioner's point of view. It is his decision and no one else's to take the matter no further. Money is paid back, and matters are settled. However, the information is not published in a right and proper way at the moment. We need more transparency, so that people can understand exactly what is happening. I entirely accept that that involves the question of retrospection. We are trying to put the last 18 months behind us, and, as I said, in that context I think that retrospection is right and proper. I hope that the House will accept it on that ground.
	I think it highly unlikely that there will be further complaints on the basis of these publications. Even if there were, evidence beyond that which had enabled the commissioner to reach the point at which he had arrived would presumably be required for any investigation to take place. I do not believe that cases that have been rectified will be reopened, whether they have been upheld or not.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned a spike in major complaints just before a general election. Political opponents often make complaints. That is a judgment to be taken not by the House or the Committee, but by the commissioner, who I hope would use common sense in those circumstances. I say that because it would be wrong-I am only one voice, but I chair the Committee-for us to define a code of conduct for the commissioner. The commissioner is independent of the Committee and must remain so. We cannot have a situation where someone investigates complaints against MPs, but works to a code of conduct written by a Committee of MPs.

Tony Lloyd: It would not necessarily be my right hon. Friend's Committee that created the code of conduct. The commissioner could operate his own code of conduct. That might give the House the reassurance that it needs.

Kevin Barron: That is entirely a matter for the commissioner. From what was said earlier, I gather that he is with us not just in spirit for the debate. I am sure he will read the report in  Hansard tomorrow. The Committee should not be a party to drawing up a code of conduct for somebody who works independently of the Committee. That would be wholly wrong.
	On the subject of lay members, we have said that that will be a matter for the Procedure Committee, and I hope the House will agree. I mentioned that I had been a lay member of the General Medical Council. The Procedure Committee may want to know something about my journey to that role. The first time I was appointed to it, I was the Labour appointee. There was also a Liberal Democrat and a Conservative appointee. They were appointed by the Leader of the House.
	That is what used to happen under the old system. The GMC was a big body, consisting of 124 members and three MPs, one from each major party. The second time that I served as a lay member on it, I had to attend an appointments session up in Leeds. I was appointed by a panel who asked me questions about what I had to bring to the table.
	I say to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) that I would hesitate to suggest to the Procedure Committee that it ought to have some form of permanent secretary. I had worked in industry as an electrician. I had been to see doctors, of course, because everyone gets ill from time to time. I used to sit on fitness to practice committees when a doctor had done wrong. Those were national cases. I was not qualified to take on the medical profession. I was there in a different role. My role was to bring to the committee what I thought ordinary people would think about the situation-to bring common sense to the issue.
	That is what we ought to ask of the Procedure Committee. How it achieves that is entirely up to the Committee. I hesitate to go down the route suggested and lay any sort of guidelines whatever. If lay members come on to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, as I hope they will at some stage, it will be up to the Committee to decide whether they have anything to do with privilege. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that as soon as we get a privilege Bill, or a draft privilege Bill, as we are promised, we can see what that means. There has been a ruling of the Supreme Court on these matters in the past 24 hours. We should look at that in the context of what has come to light in the past few months. The Procedure Committee should get on with the job, if the House agrees to the motion.
	I hope the House will accept all three motions without Division. As I said, they serve to clear up issues from before the general election and make sure that the workings of the House are as transparent as is humanly possible, so that people outside have more confidence in us than they have had in the recent past.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	(1) That this House approves the Sixth Report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 577; and
	(2) That accordingly-
	a. The Commissioner may publish papers relating to complaints rectified or not upheld since the beginning of financial year 2008-09 and information about complaints received and matters under investigation since the beginning of financial year 2010-11.
	b. Standing Order No. 150 be amended, by inserting the following new paragraph after paragraph 10.
	"(10A) The Commissioner shall have leave to publish from time to time-
	(a) information and papers relating to-
	(i) matters resolved in accordance with paragraph (3) of this order;
	and
	(ii) complaints not upheld;
	and
	(b) information about complaints received and matters under investigation."

power of the parliamentary commissioner for standards to initiate investigations

Resolved,
	(1) That this House approves the Seventh Report of the Standards and Privileges Committee, Session 2010-11, HC 578; and
	(2) That accordingly Standing Order No. 150 be amended, by leaving out paragraph (2)(e) and inserting in its place:
	"(e) to investigate, if he thinks fit, specific matters which have come to his attention relating to the conduct of Members and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate subcommittee thereof, unless the provisions of paragraph (3) apply.
	(2A) In determining whether to investigate a specific matter relating to the conduct of a Member the Commissioner shall have regard to whether in his view there is sufficient evidence that the Code of Conduct or the rules relating to registration or declaration of interests may have been breached to justify taking the matter further ." - ( Mr Barron. )

lay membership of the committee on standards and privileges

Resolved ,
	That this House agrees with the principle as set out in the Twelfth Report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that lay members should sit on the Committee on Standards and Privileges; and invites the Procedure Committee to bring forward proposals to implement it. -(Mr Barron.)

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Adam Afriyie: I beg to move,
	That this House regrets the unnecessarily high costs and inadequacies of the systems introduced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); calls on the IPSA to introduce a simpler scheme of office expenses and Members' allowances that cuts significantly the administrative costs, reduces the amount of time needed for administration by Members and their staff, does not disadvantage less welloff Members and those with family responsibilities, nor deter Members from seeking reimbursement of the costs of fulfilling their parliamentary duties; and resolves that if these objectives are not reflected in a new scheme set out by the IPSA in time for operation by 1 April 2011, the Leader of the House should make time available for the amendment of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to do so.
	I thank hon. Members across the House for their support in crafting the motion and for coming to the debate. In particular, I thank representatives of the Backbench Committees for each of the parties. This is a cross-party motion which enjoys wide cross-party support. I thank the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) for hosting the debate in Westminster Hall earlier this year, where hon. Members were able to give their initial view of the systems being operated by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.
	It would be all too easy for Members of Parliament to moan about the details of how the existing scheme is working, but from all the conversations that I have had over the past several months, I am reassured that that is not the purpose of today's debate. Members have been reassuringly consistent in their view, in private and public conversations, that the debate is about ensuring that we get a grip on a system that is taking MPs' time away from constituents and is costing the taxpayer far too much money. Although there are personal inconveniences to Members of Parliament, which are fully recognised by all MPs, that is not the primary purpose of the motion. I thank the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair for having the courage to hold the debate on a substantive motion.
	The motion presents an opportunity significantly to reduce the costs of Parliament to the taxpayer, an opportunity to allow MPs to spend more time representing their constituents, and an opportunity to reform a system that unintentionally discriminates against MPs with family commitments and those who come from a less well-off background. Above all, the motion offers a chance finally to begin or continue the process of restoring confidence in Parliament. If it is passed, as I hope it will be, it will send a clear message to IPSA and the country that Parliament wants a new expenses scheme that cuts the cost to the taxpayer and allows Members to conduct their duties for their constituents.
	The motion urges IPSA to be bold in proposing a new scheme. I hope it will introduce one that works. The motion is also clear that if IPSA fails to do that, Parliament will act in the interests of the country by proposing the necessary reforms.
	The history of payments to MPs is informative. I do not intend to go through the entire history, but it is useful in the present context. A simple Members' allowance was introduced in 1911. It was transformed-or deformed, I would argue-over the past century into a byzantine system of hidden expenses and allowances. That happened because Parliament allowed it to happen. Past Governments, understandably, avoided politically unacceptable and unpalatable pay rises for MPs, but these rises were necessary as the nature of the job changed, the amount of correspondence changed, and the expectation on MPs to be in their constituencies more often increased. MPs failed to assert themselves over the past 100 years on behalf of their constituents.
	From the mid-2000s, MPs knew the system would eventually undermine the integrity of Parliament. When I arrived as a new Member in 2005, that was pretty clear from the conversations and from the worries that were being expressed. However, I think it is safe to say that the initial system introduced by IPSA is now also creating problems, and they will make it difficult for Parliament to do its work in the future. For the sake of our democracy, Members of Parliament have a duty to act if IPSA does not bring forward a scheme that sorts out these problems.
	Last year's expenses revelations were a well-deserved kick in the teeth for Parliament. They should also have served as a wake-up call alerting us to the fact that action needed to be taken. We must act now, and avoid dragging the British Parliament back into disrepute purely because we may be nervous about the initial public reaction to what we say.
	I will address the motion shortly, but first I want to say that I greatly commend the staff at IPSA both for putting up with us, because we can be very forceful in making our representations to them, and for implementing a scheme that was designed not by them but by the IPSA board. We must take care to recognise that the staff at IPSA are working hard in trying to implement the scheme, even if it does not work for our constituents.
	I also welcome the publication of MPs' claims this morning; IPSA is right to publish them, because accountability must be at the heart of any system that is put in place. Like all other Members, I accept, of course, that it is a complete coincidence that the claims, along with other publications and leaks, were published this morning; I accept that the timing of that has nothing to do with today's debate. However, it is alarming that IPSA has chosen not to publish the receipts behind the claims, because we have been here before. If there is a claim and a supporting receipt, it is essential that the receipt is shown to the public, or made readily available to them. I believe this decision will prove to be calamitous. It implies secrecy and concealment when MPs should have nothing to hide, and it encourages misinterpretation and miscommunication unnecessarily. It is inevitable and right that under the Freedom of Information Act people will request to see these receipts, and they will therefore become available. Why on earth were they not published immediately? I think that will turn out to be a mistake.
	I recognise that some might say that it is exceptionally expensive to publish such receipts, and I agree. It is very expensive to process receipts and then publish them with redactions for privacy and other reasons. My counter-argument to that is straightforward, however: IPSA should have been aware of these costs and burdens when it introduced a scheme that demanded that such procedures were followed. It cannot be an excuse that it costs too much to publish receipts if that is what is required under the system IPSA initially designed. I therefore encourage it to change the system.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and for his contribution thus far. Does he know how many Members of Parliament IPSA consulted before setting up this scheme?

Adam Afriyie: That is a very good question. I have the figure 44 in my head for the number of responses to the initial January consultation. A quarter to a third of them were completely against the kind of scheme IPSA eventually introduced, while the other three quarters or two thirds raised specific issues that were not directly related to the terms of the consultation. The input from Members of Parliament in a public sense was therefore fairly minimal; only about 11 MPs actually made a contribution. That is a little concerning. I think the reason behind that low figure is that we as Members of Parliament all know that anything we write on expenses that is in the public domain is a hostage to fortune. We have to overcome that reluctance, however, because unless we show confidence and courage and make it absolutely clear that we will not tolerate an unnecessarily expensive system and an unnecessarily burdensome bureaucracy that takes us away from our constituents, we will fall into the same trap we have fallen into in the past. I therefore have a tremendous sense of déjà vu.
	The expenses scandal coincided with the run-up to the general election-it was almost part of the general election campaign-so there was a political need to resolve the issue quickly. I think we all recognise that, and I think we all accept that something needed to be done fairly briskly. However, on reflection now, a year later, it seems to me that perhaps in our haste we have lost some time. Even with the best intentions in the world, there have been omissions and errors in the establishment of the current regime, and they need to be tackled.
	Ignoring warnings from the Clerk of the House and others, we have created a curious beast. We have handed over control of the work of MPs to an unelected and unaccountable body. IPSA is judge and jury; IPSA is both regulator and the regulated. MPs are rightly accountable to the people who elect them, whereas IPSA is accountable to nobody, yet IPSA can control the way MPs work-it can control the amount of time that MPs have available to them to conduct their duties. That is a curious state of affairs, and if we are honest with ourselves we would never tolerate that set-up in any other walk of life, or in any other part of government or the civil service.
	I do not doubt that the chairman and board of IPSA have good intentions, but is it right that the current system continues to frustrate the work of democratically elected MPs? The issue is not about us and our minor inconveniences, but about our constituents and the time that we can spend with them, so we have to be bold in what we do.

Bernard Jenkin: To be completely fair to IPSA, the scheme that it had to implement had already been handed to it by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, and if I remember correctly there was a curious collision of timetables, whereby IPSA was set up at the same time as the committee was holding its inquiry. I am afraid that we politicians are responsible collectively for the mess that IPSA inherited from us, and I think that my hon. Friend is appealing for it to take charge, to fulfil its remit and to take full responsibility for the scheme that it now implements.

Adam Afriyie: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. It is quite clear that the Committee on Standards in Public Life had not reported at the time when IPSA was instructed to create a scheme, so we must take responsibility for that. We were in a hurry-with the right intentions-to change the system so that an external body would set the rates of remuneration and pay, but it is widely recognised that in our haste we created something that needs adjustment.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman is certainly making a positive contribution for all of us. Is it not odd that IPSA itself is not situated on the parliamentary estate? It is also reluctant to give information about its senior executives; I have now waited a fortnight for a parliamentary answer about the number of senior people in the management team and their salaries. Incidentally, it might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that the dog of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) shows absolutely rapt attention to every word he says.

Adam Afriyie: In which case I shall pursue the issue doggedly!

David Blunkett: I should like initially to make it absolutely clear that the dog has claimed no allowances whatever!
	The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have communicated this point to him, that we need to reflect on the public's reaction a year ago. Indeed, I contributed to the discussion in January and was in favour of a much simpler administrative scheme than the current one. Is the review at the beginning of January not an opportunity to try to get the system right, in a non-adversarial way; to take the public or, at least, the opinion-formers with us, rather than back a year; to make the job of IPSA staff, whom he rightly praises for trying to operate a difficult system, much easier; and to ensure, therefore, that MPs benefit from a simpler process, the public benefit from a cheaper process and the world outside believes that we have not once again lost our marbles?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can we have shorter interventions? A lot of Members wish to speak in this very important debate.

Adam Afriyie: I welcome the intervention and the correspondence between me and the right hon. Gentleman, although we have a slightly different view about the purpose of today's motion. We know that there will never be a win on this subject with the media and the public, whatever the scheme's initial form. That is just never going to happen. Anybody who has been around the media, business or politics for long enough knows that that will never happen, so the question for us is: what type of scheme would be most beneficial to constituents and the taxpayer?
	I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's input during the initial set-up, and I recognise his hard work in looking for a simple scheme, but I suspect that IPSA has not fully taken on board the power that we have given it to simplify things and make our jobs easier. My greatest hope today is that the terms of the motion never need to be used, and that IPSA comes forward with a scheme that works, thereby enabling us to do our job.
	With regard to the intervention of the hon. Member for Walsall North, it is notoriously difficult to get information out of IPSA, and I understand why. Among other practices, it might not reflect well on IPSA if its senior salaries were compared with the salaries of Members of Parliament. I believe that there is also concern over the cost of the buildings that it has hired and the contracts into which it has entered. I do not want to go into the minutiae of how IPSA operates; I want to focus on the purpose of the motion and the consequences of its being passed this afternoon.
	The motion presents an opportunity for the Government and our political party leaders to stand aside from this issue. The moment a party leader speaks on this subject, it is ignited and becomes a party political matter, with the parties wrangling with each other. The moment a Government get involved, it is a headline media issue-why are the Government trying to change IPSA and get rid of its independence? It is untenable for Governments and political party leaders to handle this issue, and they cannot do so in the way that is needed. I put it to the House that it is right for Parliament to handle this issue and to create the opportunity for the Government and party leaders to stand aside and allow measures to be brought forward. If it looks like those measures will cost the taxpayer more, of course the Government should have a right of veto. However, we need to deliver to the Government and party leaders the opportunity to step aside and allow this place time for calm contemplation and to bring forward measures. It is then up to the Government to make a judgment. We would be doing our party leaders a service, and it would be the first time in 100 years that they would have been given such an opportunity on the issue of MPs' conditions and remuneration.

Duncan Hames: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is an advocate of worker representation, but does he accept that it would be unusual in any other workplace to invite the employees to set the terms of their expenses arrangements?

Adam Afriyie: The hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and he is spot on. That is why the majority of hon. Members believe that it was right that an independent body set the rates of remuneration. We talked about privilege earlier, and this is a matter not of MPs' privilege but of the people's privilege to have an MP who can work, unimpeded by a third party that is unaccountable to the public. If a body can tell MPs how to do their work-which, in effect, IPSA can in its current form-democracy and the people's voice are undermined.

Stewart Jackson: My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Perhaps he would like to disabuse my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) of the notion that we are employees. When I came to this House, I wrote to the then Speaker to inquire about the possibility of availing myself of child care vouchers. I was told that it was not possible because I was not an employee, but was regarded by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs as self-employed. That is the distinction.

Adam Afriyie: Absolutely. My hon. Friend hits on the key issue, which has not been resolved in the last 100 years, of whether a Member of Parliament is a paid employee with a salary, in which case one would expect a job description. MPs do not have job descriptions; it is therefore semi-illogical that they would have salaries. HMRC is absolutely correct that for most intents and purposes, MPs are self-employed. I will comment on that in a moment, but I am conscious of the time that I am taking.

Bob Russell: In answer to parliamentary questions that I tabled, IPSA graciously acknowledged that I am employed by the good people of Colchester. It also acknowledged that I am the employer of my staff and that it is not the employer of MPs' staff. However, half the time it behaves as if it were the employer of MPs, and half the time as if it were the employer of MPs' staff.

Adam Afriyie: That is the irreconcilable nature of the task that IPSA has been set. These are quite deep waters and I am not sure that we can get into the intricacies in this debate. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a fundamental incompatibility between an external body controlling the terms and conditions by which staff are employed and the responsibility for that employment falling with the individual Member.

Brian H Donohoe: I completely support what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Can we move back to the motion and to trying to consider how we rationalise the headings in respect of what the regime is all about? It is clear to me that it is all so time-consuming and unnecessary and will lead to our running out of money in certain budgets. That problem would be overcome if there was a bit of rationalisation before 1 April next year-the date set by the hon. Gentleman in the motion.

Adam Afriyie: I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing me back to the motion, which is where we really need to be, especially given how long I have taken so far. He is absolutely right to say that we are looking for the schemes to be simplified. I hope that the motion will give IPSA the licence to do that without our having to bring forward measures. There are other anomalies that may need to be dealt with through legislation, including statutory instruments, but they do not relate directly to the reimbursement or remuneration of MPs.
	I turn back to the motion, which has three substantive parts. First, there is the regret about the unnecessary bureaucracy that impedes MPs' work for their constituents. Secondly, there is the regret about the unnecessarily high cost of the scheme; I shall not go into the details of how the new scheme costs 50% more than the one in the previous Parliament, although I am sure that others will. There are also irreconcilable differences in IPSA's January consultation. Principle 9 in chapter 2 says that
	"Arrangements should be flexible enough to take account of the diverse working patterns and demands placed upon individual MPs",
	but by introducing a prescriptive and rigid system, IPSA has manifestly failed to recognise that point in the scheme so far. Principle 10 in chapter 2 says:
	"The system should be clear and understandable. If it is difficult to explain an element of the system in terms which the general public will regard as reasonable, that is a powerful argument against it."
	Yet the current system fails to respect that principle. How can IPSA expect the general public to understand the system when we MPs find it virtually impossible to understand? That is another irreconcilable point.
	Sections 3.1 and 3.2 state that there is no formal job description for an MP and that defining an MP's duties is notoriously difficult. However, the document goes on to attempt to define that role. Section 3.13 recognises the varying accommodation needs of every MP. Why, then, is the system so prescriptive about the nature of that accommodation, irrespective of family situation or the rapidly changing circumstances of individual Members?

Bob Stewart: I am a new Member with a constituency in outer London. Every night, I am lucky enough to return to my family. However, many colleagues tell me that, for four to five days a week, they have extreme difficulty in seeing their families because the allowances do not permit it. In many cases, a Member cannot keep their family with them unless they are rich enough. I feel that that is wrong.

Adam Afriyie: Hear, hear! Absolutely. The system seems almost designed to create a Parliament for the wealthy. If a Member does not have sufficient resources to subsidise themselves, they become ensnared in a vice-like grip designed to bring them into disrepute-they have to produce every single receipt for some sort of personal item. Wealthier Members or those with independent means, of course, can simply not claim. As I look around both sides of the Chamber, I know that probably not a single Member here has claimed everything that they are entitled to claim-first, through fear of the public and the media really having a go, or secondly, because it is too complicated and time-consuming to do so.
	We have to ask ourselves whether the public want such a system for their Parliament. The wealthy swan through, buy their way out of the system with no trouble at all and are treated as saints when they are nothing of the sort, and everyone else is stuck in the system.

Joan Walley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main issues is that IPSA does not seem to have understood that MPs have responsibilities and duties in their constituency and similarly here in Parliament? The current system does not take that into account, so the costs of one or the other have to be subsidised, or can be met by those who have wealth. If MPs do not have that wealth, they are simply unable to meet the costs of operating in two places at once.

Adam Afriyie: Exactly that debate was had in 1911. After the Osborne judgment, Labour Members could no longer be funded by the unions, which meant, in effect, that they were destitute. Then, in 1911, a flat rate-a beautifully simple Members' allowance- was introduced at £400 a year. Members were told: "There you go. This is not a salary, a remuneration, a reimbursement of expenses or a payment in kind for services; it is merely an allowance that recognises that there are costs associated with being here, and Members are trusted to organise their lives in the way that is necessary."
	One cannot second-guess and legislate for the topography of every seat or the lifestyles-the changing lifestyles-of every MP, or for the reproduction rates of MPs: we are now on our fifth. One cannot create a system that takes into account whether the trains are working or whether it is going to snow and being told only at 5 o'clock in the evening. There is no way that the route that IPSA is currently pursuing will satisfy the needs of the public to have a Parliament that functions effectively.

Edward Leigh: So why not go back to a simple flat-rate allowance for everybody?

Adam Afriyie: The Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill, which will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper-of course, I do not know what is going to happen to it-says that that is exactly what we ought to do, because it would save the taxpayer money and give MPs time to serve their constituents. That proposal is not directly related to the motion, but I just point it out. It would take courage to enact such a simple, straightforward scheme, and I urge IPSA to have the courage to do so. There is nothing more transparent than a flat-rate Members' allowance: everyone can see what it is and everyone can see that every MP gets the same thing.
	The current system causes inconvenience and makes things very difficult for Members with families and Members who are less well-off. It also causes problems, because Members are not making claims. Looking back at this year, and certainly over the past six months, I know that virtually every one of my colleagues-I have spoken to 350 MPs one-to-one-has not made the claims that they are entitled to make. That may be seen externally as a great success-"Look, IPSA has crushed the MPs, and they cost far less!"-but we all know that that is not the situation. We know that Members are borrowing from their parents, having to borrow cars from friends, and still sleeping on floors of offices, which they are not supposed to do, because they are not claiming what they rightfully should be able to claim. It is not a good situation.
	However, I am not moaning on behalf of existing MPs. I love all the MPs here, but I am not whingeing on their behalf. What I am concerned about is the functioning of Parliament for the next 100 years. Where will we be in 30 years' time if we continue down this route where only the wealthy can serve? That is where we were before; I thought we had moved on. IPSA, I hope you are listening.

Nadine Dorries: The Chamber is largely full of men today and women are represented only in small number, so I ask that this comment is not regarded as sexist. The IPSA regulations say that mothers with teenage children are not allowed to have their children to stay with them in their overnight accommodation in London. When a single mother is telephoned from the school or university and told that their child is sick and to collect them and take them home, what are they supposed to do? Mothers are not allowed to have their children with them, yet we have to be here to carry out our duties. Does my hon. Friend agree that the IPSA regulations are particularly difficult for women?

Adam Afriyie: I am making the same observation, and my hon. Friend highlights the point very well.
	The motion asks not for a system that involves looking into the individual lifestyle of every Member, but merely for a simplified system that recognises the variability in family arrangements. The motion asks not for a system that investigates the lifestyle, family arrangements and travelling habits of every MP, but for a simpler system that saves the taxpayer money, so that MPs can focus on the job at hand, whether or not they have a family.
	I shall come to my closing remarks, because I am conscious of time. The third part of the motion is significant. I am begging IPSA please to propose a scheme that sorts the problems out, and I hope that it will. It has the mandate of the House of Commons already, so it can do so. However, the motion states that if a scheme that can be put into operation by 1 April 2011 is not proposed, this place will act-not in our interests, but in the interests of our constituents and Parliament.
	I am now on the record as encouraging IPSA to come forward with a scheme, but we must be clear on timing. If a proposal is not forthcoming by, say, mid-January, it will be impossible to introduce a scheme before the beginning of the next financial year. Therefore, if the motion is carried, it is necessary for us to introduce a Bill or a statutory instrument or something, probably this side of Christmas, in case IPSA's proposal is not the right one. Otherwise, we are trapped within the current system, and our constituents will suffer. The costs will be astronomically high for at least another year to a year and a half, and I fear that Members will begin to leave Parliament. The work of Parliament will continue to be impeded unless such changes are made.

Andrew Tyrie: My hon. Friend makes a strong case and a plea to IPSA to get on with it. Does he agree that it is up to the Government to empower IPSA by sending a strong message that they support the need for radical reform of a system that, in the end, on administrative cost grounds alone, ought to be seen as unsustainable and unworkable?

Adam Afriyie: That was exceptionally well put. One of my big asks of the Government is that they communicate the message that IPSA is empowered to make those changes and should not be nervous about doing so if the motion is passed.
	This is a sensitive issue and the public are understandably concerned. I am certain that tomorrow this debate will be reported as, "MPs whinge about their conditions and the independent body that controls them", but that is not what the debate is about. The debate is about saving the taxpayer money and ensuring that MPs' voices are heard and not hidden through fear of speaking out.

Andrew Bridgen: As a Member of the 2010 intake, I have no personal knowledge of the system that ran before, but I came here from the private sector, and the IPSA system epitomises everything I had always believed to be wrong with government-it is bureaucratic, inefficient and very expensive. The system fails in two respects. First, unless hon. Members are of considerable personal wealth, they are prevented from conducting their duties as their constituents would like; and secondly, that this system was adopted in response to such serious allegations against conduct in the previous Parliament is a stain on this place. The system is failing and it needs reform.

Adam Afriyie: I thank my hon. Friend very much for that intervention; everyone will have heard what he said.
	We know that the current system costs the taxpayer far too much, that it takes the time of MPs away from their constituents, and that it will continue to undermine Members, particular those with families and those who are less well off. We have a duty to act in the taxpayer's interest if IPSA does not propose a new scheme. One former Prime Minister said:
	"The first duty of a member of Parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain. His second duty is to his constituents of whom he is the representative but not the delegate."
	We must stand up, in a disinterested fashion-not for our own purposes-and insist that IPSA propose another system. If it does not, we must resolve to act. That is what the motion proposes.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. As hon. Members are aware, Mr Speaker has decided not to select the amendment. Many Members wish to speak, so brevity is essential.

Ann Clwyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on his excellent speech and on the way in which he introduced the debate. I hope that he continues throughout his life in Parliament to feel as much affection for all hon. Members as he expressed today, although I doubt that that will continue as time goes on. However, I appreciated the opening words of his speech.
	I had my whinge last time round when we had the first debate in Westminster Hall. I also got very angry, and I still feel angry that, because of the activities of a few Members in the past, we have all been smeared. We continue to be smeared by the belief that we are all crooks, and after 26 years in Parliament I resent that immensely. We all found during the general election campaign that whether we had done something or not, we were all considered to be crooks. Someone came up to me during the campaign and shouted, "Thief!" If I had been a man, I would have run after him and punched him in the face, because I feel about this so strongly. I am not a thief and I have never been a thief. I object to Members being considered as thieves, because the vast majority of people in this place are nothing of the sort, and it is not right that we have been smeared by the activities of a few.
	A member of my staff uses the online expenses system to fill in the forms on my behalf. I had not thought of the idea of one of my colleagues, who told IPSA that his finger was in plaster and he was unlikely to be taking it out of plaster, which meant that IPSA officials had to go to his office to fill in expense claims on his behalf. I wanted to look at the problems as dispassionately as possible, so I asked my member of staff about his experiences and to outline the difficulties he had encountered. He said:
	"Although after the MPs expenses fiasco there was a genuine desire to create a new and more transparent system to pay Members' expenses, I do not think the system put in place by IPSA is the best alternative"-
	he was also aware of the previous system. He continued:
	"The new system is in no way more transparent than the system it replaced, the main difference is that rather than submit paper claims Members must now submit them online. It seems as though rather than looking for a simple solution"-
	several colleagues have suggested such a solution today-
	"(such as daily allowances or issuing credit cards to Members for their expenses) an expensive all consuming bureaucratic monster has been created."
	Several issues have arisen after six months of the new system. Inevitably, Members allow their staff to fill out and submit claims forms on their behalf. The previous system did not allow anyone except the Member to sign the forms before they were submitted, but the new system places a lot of trust in the hands of a non-elected proxy. The way in which the travel card statement is sent to the proxy's IPSA account, not to Members, is very time consuming and confusing. The Member travel card has the potential to simplify the way in which Members claim, but the way in which it operates only adds to the problems of the online system.

Kevan Jones: Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that the new travel card system is far more complicated than the old system? Under the old system, we had a statement once a month that we had to go through to check that the information was correct. We then ticked it and signed it ourselves before sending it back. Under the present system, we have to provide the information in paper form and then put it back online, as well as sending in the individual rail tickets. Frankly, that is complete nonsense.

Ann Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very good point.
	During the first few months of the new system's operation, Members faced huge delays in getting any claims reimbursed. They accumulated large amounts of debt at the beginning of a new Parliament, and a great deal of time and manpower has been spent trying to balance the books ever since. This unnecessarily takes time away from other parliamentary duties, as has been pointed out. During the past six months, IPSA has twice lost or not received the receipts we have sent in the post. IPSA is adamant that all claims must be accompanied by original receipts, but no contingency plan has been put in place to deal with lost receipts. The old system allowed Members to send in photocopies of receipts, while we filed the originals for our own records. Members are now at risk if they do not take photocopies of all receipts before sending them to IPSA.
	Communicating with or contacting IPSA is not easy. There is only one general phone number and e-mail address for Members to contact. We have all been put on hold for more than 45 minutes while waiting to discuss issues with IPSA staff and, due to a lack of replies, we have all but given up trying to contact IPSA via e-mail.
	I am sure that there would have been many more Members here today if they were not still fearful of the press. We all know that whatever we say here today will be picked up and used in one way or another. Some Members who would have liked to be here to make similar points to the ones we are making are not here because of a certain amount of fear. It is ridiculous that elected Members of Parliament, who often have to stand up for their constituents, find it difficult to stand up for themselves.

David Winnick: It is quite possible that new Members fear the local press in particular, and worry that it might say that the moment that they are elected, they start complaining. Is there not therefore a greater responsibility on those of us who have been here some time to make this case today?

Ann Clwyd: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I am glad that so many of us are here to make that case.
	As a former journalist, I have been quite surprised at the many leaks that have appeared in the press on matters concerning MPs' discussions with IPSA and what they have sent into IPSA. A headline in  The Times yesterday read "Carry on claiming; MPs are already flouting new rules on expenses". The article went on to give details. Now, I admire good journalists, and well done to them for getting the story, but how did they get it unless somebody at IPSA leaked it to them? This morning, a colleague told me that they had been talking to a member of the press who had been offered information by somebody at IPSA on certain "juicy" bits that had not yet emerged in the press about what certain Members had claimed for. The story in  The Times said that one MP had had a claim for £338 for a shredder refused. Why on earth was he refused that for a shredder? We all use shredders; we often have to shred correspondence, for example. But that is not the point. How on earth did the newspaper get that story in the first place?
	I have been told an allegation that I cannot personally prove, but the information has been given to me on very good authority. I make the allegation because it is doing the rounds-I apologise to the person about whom the allegation is made if it is not true, and she might like to deny it during the course of the day-and it is that the information is coming from the Director of Communications at IPSA, Anne Power. She can either refute that or, if it is the case, agree that it is true. I have every reason to believe my source and that that is the case. There must be an answer to why, every time we have a debate on IPSA, an anti-MP story appears the day before. The information must come from the only people with that knowledge, and that must be the people at IPSA. Today, they must deny or otherwise admit that that person has offered that information to a member of the press.

Roger Gale: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). May I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) not only on bringing this debate to the House today but on the considerable amount of hard work he has put in over many months to seek to redress what indubitably has been and remains a wrong? My hon. Friend has studiously given IPSA, perhaps appropriately, until all fools' day to come back with a better scheme. Personally, I would prefer to see a change now, but I shall support his motion in the Lobby, if necessary, later.
	I want to pay tribute to the staff of the former Fees Office, many of whom have been reviled-shamefully, sometimes in this House, but more particularly in the press-because of the systems that had developed. Those staff, known to many of us in previous Parliaments, were in the main diligent, courteous and careful and did a very good job. Some are now working for IPSA, but I happen to know that some of them are acutely disturbed by the climate of mistrust in IPSA that has been inculcated into them and imposed on them from the top. By the top, I mean the chairman and the interim chief executive. Let us now call a spade a spade and understand what we are talking about.
	The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) said it was up to those of us who have knocked around for a bit to speak up for the newer Members of the House. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am practically halfway through my parliamentary career- [ Laughter. ] Did I hear somebody say "shame"? On that basis, I believe that some of us have a duty to say things that young men and women who entered this Parliament for the first time in May need to have said for them but do not feel able to say for themselves. There has been a climate of fear and of mistrust. There is a feeling that if we complain our constituents will not understand and the local and national press certainly will not understand. There are some things that we must get on the record.
	In introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor said that he was trying to stimulate a measure in the interests of our constituents and in the interests of saving money. He is absolutely right. The system that has been imposed on us is wasteful, costly and bureaucratic and it is failing. We have to get that right. The interim chief executive of IPSA, in one of his many issued statements, said that
	"the core of our mission is to support parliamentary democracy."
	Mr Churchill might have used the phrase "round objects". I am sorry, I do not accept that. Our job goes to the core of parliamentary democracy, and parliamentary democracy is being interfered with by the scheme that has been imposed on us.
	Let us be absolutely clear about this: not just in the last Parliament but probably in the two or three before, things went very badly wrong. Some former Members behaved in a way that can only be described as less than honourable, and we all need to understand that there was, and remains, a need for change. But change for the sake of change, on the basis of "My shirt is hairier than yours", is not a way of taking the House forward.
	The hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked how many Members had been consulted before the new scheme was devised. The answer is none or very few. We have to accept that IPSA found itself faced with a well nigh impossible task, and I do not demur from that at all. It had to try to put together a scheme within the time scale that our Front Benchers on both sides of the House demanded-we need to be clear about where some of the responsibility for that lies. That was very difficult, but having said that, the people at the top of IPSA have chosen-I believe partly through arrogance-to ignore the fundamentals and not to do the groundwork and research necessary to put in place not just a scheme, but a scheme that worked.
	I have invited the interim chief executive of IPSA, courteously and on three separate occasions, to visit my parliamentary office. It is located in my constituency, but it is not a constituency office. That is a fundamental difference. I have chosen to locate my entire business in the constituency. I have tried to impress on the interim chief executive the point that if a Member of Parliament has his or her office based within the parliamentary estate, and if all their staff are based there, all their bills for telephone calls, office equipment, heating, lighting, cleaning, office rental, rates, fire precautions-the whole kit and caboodle-are paid for by the House authorities. That represents a difference of about £17,000 a year between that Member and another Member with his or her parliamentary office in the constituency. That means, of course, that the information published today is hopelessly distorted. My telephone bills for my parliamentary office will be much higher than those of colleagues who use the phones here.
	The interim chief executive wrote back to me and completely missed the point, saying, "Well, if you've got a problem with this, we're quite prepared to review the amount that you're allowed." I do not want the amount that I am allowed reviewed, and I do not want to spend any more money. Over 27 years in this place, I have already subsidised my office costs to the taxpayer to the tune of a quarter of a million pounds, and I have done so uncomplainingly. However, I do not want to be misunderstood by people who have devised a scheme without taking the trouble to get out there, visit offices and really understand what the job of a Member of Parliament is about.
	I asked when the interim chief executive had visited a constituency or a parliamentary office in a constituency, how often and where. Hon. Members may be dismayed to learn that the answer, which came after a freedom of information request because I was not initially told, stated that the chief executive's first visit to any office was on 9 July, the election having been in May. That was to the office of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), where he spent two days. More recently-very recently-the man who told me that it was not possible to visit my office visited South Thanet, which is four miles down the road.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that a good example of IPSA completely misunderstanding how an MP's office runs was its early diktat that it would pay only 85% of our phone bills, on the basis that the other 15% related to our personal use?

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I shall discuss the costs of IPSA now, because I am conscious that a lot of hon. Members wish to speak and I must not take up too much time.
	I want to address issues such as IPSA's extravagance and waste. The office costs issue is important. IPSA's chief executive says that plenty of people in the public sector pay their bills and then reclaim the money. I am sorry, but I do not believe that IPSA's chief executive pays any part of the rent for his office in Victoria-or his phone, heating, lighting and cleaning bills-and then claims it back. I therefore asked how much IPSA was spending on that. The rental for those offices, which are not on the parliamentary estate, as the hon. Member for Walsall North said, costs £348,000 a year over the life of the lease.
	I am still waiting-IPSA is out of time on this-for a freedom of information follow-up to tell me how much IPSA is spending on business rates, heating, lighting, cleaning, service charges, depreciation and all the other costs. That figure has to be in excess of £500,000. I note that Mr Speaker has said that he wants IPSA's costs cut to £2 million. If just the building costs £500,000, even before we have put any people in it, and if we now have to pay for the gold key online expenses submissions system, £2 million will not be enough, despite the fact that the old Fees Office did the entire job for that money.
	Funding of the online key scheme is discrete; IPSA will not give the answer under freedom of information legislation because the information is commercial in confidence and providing it might prejudice future negotiations. What I can tell the House is that IPSA has entered into a five-year contract. I suspect it has done so at very considerable expense and with no break clause. So if we do revise this scheme, the taxpayers will find themselves paying the bill up to the full five years.
	We asked the chief executive what the purpose of all the duplication is. Our staff spend six hours a week online, filling in forms on the screen, item by item and line by line. That is fine, but they then have to print the whole darned lot, back it up with receipts and send it in. IPSA's chief executive does not consider that to be duplication, but if doing something twice is not duplication, I do not know what is.
	Finally, I wish to discuss an issue that has been raised and is of grave concern to new and younger Members, particularly those with young families: the living costs allowed to Members of Parliament to maintain the necessary accommodation-I emphasise the word "necessary"-in the constituency and in London. It appears to have escaped IPSA's understanding that Members of Parliament do work in the House of Commons and in our constituencies.
	I know colleagues in Kent who represent quite large constituencies that have only one station, which is perhaps just within an hour by train from London. We need to understand that that is just under an hour platform to platform, not door to door. They do not receive any London weighting, any London living allowance or any accommodation allowance at all, so they find themselves, having come into this place believing that they have come here to do a job of work on behalf of their constituents, either having to pay to get home late at night or having to travel home before the vote at 10 pm. Where is the sense in that? I do not know of any journey time that starts when the train arrives at the platform and ends when it arrives at the platform at the other end, but takes no account of the time it takes someone to get from their home or office to that platform to wait for the train, to catch the train, to be delayed, to get off at the other end and to get back home or to their place of work. That is arrant nonsense. When I told IPSA that those people were being unfairly treated, I was told:
	"IPSA did not consider that eligibility for accommodation could reasonably be decided on the basis on where the MP elected to live. This would have created a perverse incentive for the MP to opt to live further away from Westminster, in order to be eligible for accommodation. The decision was therefore taken on principle that eligibility should depend on the constituency's proximity to Westminster. It is then down to MPs whether they elect to live close to the station within their constituency which has the fastest links to Westminster".
	In other words, if Members do not like it, they should sell their houses and move closer to the station.
	I have been in this place for a long time, and I want to leave it one day knowing that it is in safe hands-the hands of good people who have come here for the right reasons and who want to do the job that they were elected to do. If they are going to be able to do that, they have to have the resources. The people who are denying them those resources are the people who are currently running IPSA. We have two choices. This House-this democracy-will either be the province of the very rich or juvenile anoraks with no experience of life, business or anything at all, or we will sort this problem out. As far as we are concerned, IPSA has until 1 April. It had better get it right.

John Mann: I am just wondering which category I fall into: the rich or the junior anoraks with no experience of life.
	New Members will have read the previous debates. They will have seen that there was a debate not only in January 2009, but in July 2008. They will have studied that debate. One need not read it for too long, however, because one is rehearing it today. I tabled an amendment on 3 July 2008. Unfortunately, my amendment did not manage to persuade the Speaker that it should be selected. So it is today, but there has been some progress, because today I have been called to speak in the debate, unlike in 2008. In that debate, a year before the expenses scandal became a public issue, the same arguments were made. That was exactly a year before-well, not exactly: it was nine months before- The Daily Telegraph got that leaked information, and the rest, as we say, is history. That debate of 3 July 2008 is therefore of significance and relevance. The same Westminster club, with its desire for a special status in society, was eloquently defended then in the same way that we have heard this afternoon. The rich or the junior anoraks with no experience of life? Well, I am not rich: I have no inherited wealth, no wealth siphoned away-

Nadine Dorries: And no friends.

John Mann: We hear the same kind of abuse that I got following that debate-some of it to my face; some was behind my back. My proposal then-new Members might want to listen carefully to this-was that the House should debar the practice of flipping. If that had been agreed, it is eminently predictable that the issue of mortgages would not have been resurrected in the way that it was the year after. An acceptable solution would have been in place as would a coherent system of mortgages. However, the House was not interested in listening to that, because, despite the fact that my resolution was passed, even though I could not get a seconder-I had read "Erskine May" and I knew the procedures-the powers that be managed to bury its implications. It was not enacted and a high price was paid.
	The principle at issue is simple-this is why I back the independence of IPSA-should we cede our ability to determine how the rules on expenses are set and managed to an independent body or not? I can criticise how things are done; indeed, I have and some of my criticisms were listened to but some were not. We can all take a view on what the system should be, but the principle remains: should we cede the authority to determine these matters to IPSA-an independent body-or not? That was the basis on which we legislated, and the motion, which would have been improved by my amendment, which unfortunately has not been selected, breaks that principle.
	I oppose and shall vote against the motion because it says that MPs should have the power to determine such matters. That was the fundamental weakness in the previous expenses system. There is a lot of history and reason behind all this, but there is also reason for the state we are in. I remind the House that we are about to go through a series of court cases and that others might follow. The media will be full of that and so will our constituents. We are in that state of play because of the previous expenses system. The fundamental weakness was not just in the detail but in the principle: the public rightly hated the fact that we set our own terms and conditions.
	We rightly broke with that principle and it was inevitable that a new system starting from scratch would have a lot of problems-some of us said so at the time and feared it. Whoever set up the system, whether it was this chap Kennedy with his IPSA, Sir Christopher Kelly with his committee and his review or any other body, it would have had significant problems because of the complexity of the arrangements. Arbitrary decisions will be made, as they are in every expenses system. When I ran a business, I set the system for my employees and contractors, and when I was a union representative, I negotiated and tried to improve expenses systems. Of course, there were arbitrary decisions that I thought unfair when I was operating within other systems, but there always will be in any independent system. This all comes back to whether we set the system. That is the breach point; the motion would break that principle and that is why it is fundamentally wrong.

Claire Perry: Many new Members on the Government Benches have no issue with the principle of an independent, transparent organisation. As someone who publishes all her expenses on her website, I entirely support the move. The hon. Gentleman talked about creating something from scratch. Rather than going out and buying an off-the-shelf system that could have been provided by numerous companies around the world, we have been compelled to reinvent the wheel and we have ended up with a square wheel that is gold-plated at best. Surely, the hon. Gentleman, with his business experience, will have come across multiple organisations that could have done that for 650 Members. We are not a multi-million pound organisation with hundreds of thousands of employees. We are a small organisation that is struggling to do the best thing by British taxpayers and our constituents. I totally support the motion that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has tabled as a way of doing it better.

John Mann: If the hon. Lady supports the motion, she supports a break in the fundamental principle on which we legislated. [Hon. Members: "Read it! It doesn't say that. You can't read."] Would hon. Members like to listen? [Hon. Members: "Can't you read? Read it!"] Hon. Members choose to shout abuse. Yes, I can read, I have read the motion, and I have seen what the principle is. Hon. Members should read the 2008 debate and see the problem with the culture of MPs trying to determine the detail of their own expenses.
	I refute the point made by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who moved the motion, that MPs cannot do their job under the new system. I can do my job under the new system as well as I did it in the past. Nothing is restricting me in the range of things I do, or in how I interpret and do my job. I put it to him that mine is not the least busy of offices, and I am not taking on the least onerous amounts of work. In my estimation, IPSA has improved month on month, and will continue to do so. That is the salient point when starting a new system. I can see only a few areas where further improvement would have a significant impact.

George Hollingbery: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I understand his problem with the motion. As a new Member, I welcome a transparent and publicly accountable expenses system that all can see, and I understand his problem-he thinks that Parliament is attempting to control IPSA in some way. However, he must recognise that this place has a duty of care to the taxpayer. How would he hold IPSA, and its expenses and costs, to account? I believe strongly that it does not provide good value for money. I have no particular beef with how it administers the system-although other hon. Members do-but will he explain how the House, which pays for IPSA with revenue raised from taxation, will hold it to account?

John Mann: When the House passed the relevant legislation, it put in place such processes. Similar processes were in place before. Although the Speaker did not select my amendment, he has the ability and power to do that now, and he uses that power to the best of his ability.
	Earlier, from a sedentary position, certain hon. Members shouted, "Read it!". So I will read out the motion, in case anyone else has not done so fully. It concludes that
	"if these objectives are not reflected in a new scheme set out by the IPSA in time for operation by 1 April 2011, the Leader of the House should make time available for the amendment of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to do so."
	That is a fundamental step over the line between the House ceding authority to an independent body and not doing so. It might well be that an independent body establishes and maintains an expenses system that no Members of Parliament are happy with, but the moment the principle is accepted of ceding that authority, as has been done on salaries as well, that principle cannot be breached.
	It is reasonable, of course, for me and other Members to raise with IPSA, or indeed any other independent body, criticisms we have and improvements we would make-and I have done so. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised the issue of the travel card. I have raised that precise point with IPSA and suggested that its systems on that are far too bureaucratic, too onerous on Members and too expensive. I would consider that a sensible improvement. I have made that point, and I hope that it listens. It is right and proper that the House expresses concerns about the detail. I share the concerns, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), about some of the appointments at the top of IPSA. I do not think it needs all these high-falutin' executives in post and being paid. So I totally agree with him, if that is the point he was alluding to.

George Hollingbery: indicated assent.

John Mann: I totally and absolutely agree on that point. That is a criticism I would make. However, that should not obscure the principle, and if we roll back the principle with this motion, we will be back to where we were on 3 July 2008, and we will be saying that it is for us to decide our pay and conditions. It is precisely that problem that created the system that led to the disregard in which we are still held by the British people. The fact that they believe we are all at it-all on the make-is not simply a temporary blip. For many of them that description will continue for a long time to characterise their perception of their Members of Parliament, which will bring about a fundamental weakness in our democracy.

Charlie Elphicke: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on securing the debate. I am a new Member, one of the 2010 intake. I campaigned against the abuse of expenses, and to this day I am disgusted by it. My concern is very simple: the time that I spend fiddling around with the expenses system is time that I cannot spend helping my constituents. That is my prime concern, and the prime reason why I support the motion.

John Mann: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the amount of time that my staff and I have to spend on the system is greater than it was before, but I recall the system as it was before. As we have learnt from what has emerged, in those days a signature would do, and the scandals that followed made it clear that that was not sufficient. No organisation in the country that experienced such a level of scandal related to expenses would not have introduced a requirement for every box to be ticked and every receipt to be monitored. We cannot set ourselves a lower standard than we would expect of any corporation, or any other part of the public sector out there.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I would have supported the hon. Gentleman's amendment had Mr Speaker called it, because I thought its tone admirable. My point concerns the independence of any regulator of a sovereign Parliament. The difficulty is that, although that regulator may be independent in title, what the House of Commons gives by legislation it can take by legislation. Constitutionally, therefore, IPSA cannot be independent of Parliament-and nor should it be, because if it were independent of Parliament, it would be independent of the British people.

John Mann: I do not think that that would be an accurate constitutional point if there were a constitution. Parliament has powers to meddle with the courts. Parliament has the power, for example, to meddle with any piece of legislation. The question is whether Parliament should cede authority over the administering of, and the meddling with, such implements.
	Parliament could, at some stage, decide to abolish, but my amendment seeks to influence by threatening to abolish, which in some respects is even more invidious than simply moving to abolish. For the House to suggest, six months into a new system, that that system is too onerous to allow Members to do their job properly is absurd. Legitimate criticisms can be made on grounds of both bureaucracy and expense, but we should not reverse the principles of a decision made so recently. I warn the House that if we do, the wrath of our constituents will rightfully fall on us, because we will be saying, "The bad old days were not that bad. We will create the system that we want to fit us." [Hon. Members: "People are not saying that."] Actually, people are saying many different things about the expenses system that would suit them and their position best. That is the problem with creating expenses systems: we have different constituencies, and experience different circumstances in different parts of the country.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Mann: I shall conclude on this: the principles on which we changed-because we were forced to change, because in 2008 and January 2009 we refused to change the system or even to countenance changes to the system-are the same principles today. In pointing that out some of us may have to become a little less popular, but in this case it is not us who are the extremists in the debate. In this case we are the moderates in the debate, suggesting a moderate way forward. I advise the House that in this case moderation would do well.

John Stanley: My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has performed a signal service to the House by initiating this debate. I congratulate him on his pertinent and important contribution.
	I declare an interest. I am one of the 128 MPs who are no longer able to claim expenses for accommodation in London, even though-my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) rightly alluded to this-my journey time correctly measured from my front door to my House of Commons office door is some two hours, and that is on days when it is not snowing.
	I want to make five quick points. First, under section 5 of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, IPSA is under clear statutory consultation obligations. I believe that IPSA was in clear breach of those statutory obligations in respect of MPs like myself whose constituencies were not specifically identified either in the Kelly report or in IPSA's own consultation document as constituencies where the MPs were likely to be deprived of their London accommodation expenses, virtually without notice. I consider that the treatment by IPSA of this group of MPs, particularly those who have rental contracts, has been wholly unacceptable.
	The chronology ran as follows. On 29 March this year, IPSA published its MPs expenses scheme, and the MPs concerned learned, out of the blue, that they would no longer obtain reimbursement for their rental contracts. The expenses scheme was brought into statutory effect on the very same date by Mr Speaker laying the expenses scheme before the House. A few days later, on 12 April, Parliament was dissolved, and the MPs concerned therefore lost any ability to contest or to object to the provisions that had been included in the expenses scheme.
	Polling day was a few weeks later on 6 May, and the IPSA expenses scheme came into legal effect on the following day, 7 May. Those MPs with rental contracts found themselves unable to claim reimbursement for their rental payments under those contracts with immediate effect. I believe this was a serious breach of IPSA's statutory consultation obligations. If any employer, whether in the public or the private sector, had treated their people in the same way, they would face serious liability for damages in front of an employment tribunal.

Mark Field: I hope my right hon. Friend will recognise that we are not employees in any sense. We are self-employed. Had he lost his seat on 6 May, there would have been no question of reimbursement from public funds for his rental contract, however much time remained unfilled.

John Stanley: There is an important point on the status of MPs, to which I shall come later. If they were self-employed, they would determine their own expenses scheme. They emphatically are not doing so.
	The second point is that in its expenses scheme, IPSA produced a schedule of what it described as "fundamental principles". An important fundamental principle is fundamental principle 2. It reads:
	"Members of Parliament have the right to be reimbursed for unavoidable costs where they are incurred wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of their parliamentary duties, but not otherwise."
	It is an illustration of the sad and regrettable fact that the IPSA board members have not adequately informed themselves about what is involved in the work of an MP that that principle, which IPSA says is fundamental, has not been complied with in a number of cases. I want to explain one such case.
	As all of us know, what are deemed to be outer London Members-which includes a huge swathe representing constituencies in the home counties-regularly make day visits to their constituencies wholly for parliamentary purposes, such as to attend a school or a meeting with their health authority, but none of the travel costs for such trips are reimbursable under the IPSA expenses scheme unless the Member goes to his or her constituency office, which might be wholly irrelevant to the purpose of the journey. That is one illustration of IPSA failing to comply with what it describes as a fundamental principle, and I have no doubt that other Members can think of further situations when they have incurred expenses
	"wholly, exclusively, and necessarily in the performance of their parliamentary duties"
	that have not been reimbursed.
	My third point is about a term with which we are all very familiar: maladministration. In the Westminster Hall debate initiated by the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), countless examples of maladministration by IPSA were given. It is very regrettable that in putting together the legislation that is the basis for IPSA, the previous Government failed to apply to IPSA as a statutory quango the same right of redress as applies in respect of a host of similar bodies-namely, the right for an individual to make a complaint of maladministration, in this case to the parliamentary ombudsman. It is equally regrettable that the current Government have thus far failed to address that.
	I submitted a written parliamentary question on that point to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, which was answered this week:
	"The remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Parliamentary Ombudsman) is updated annually. As part of this exercise, consideration is given to whether bodies established in year should be brought within the Parliamentary Ombudsman's remit."-[ Official Report, 29 November 2010; Vol. 519, c. 560W.]
	The parliamentary ombudsman's remit is under constant examination, and I believe IPSA should forthwith be brought within its remit so that Members of Parliament-and possibly others, such as Members' staff-can make a complaint of maladministration against IPSA to the parliamentary ombudsman.
	My fourth point is that in any properly functioning democracy it is, of course, essential that Ministers and Members of Parliament are not in any way above the law, but equally in any properly functioning democracy Members of Parliament should have the same rights in law as are available to other individuals who are engaged in their occupational work. Under IPSA, however, Members of Parliament are uniquely disadvantaged in law. IPSA is effectively performing the functions of the employer: in any walk of life it is the employer who determines what expenses can be claimed for, how they should be claimed for and so forth, and those are exactly IPSA's functions. In any other walk of life, the employee-the person working-would be able to go to an employment tribunal. Members are not self-employed; we have employed status for tax purposes. IPSA is the employer in that it determines the expenses framework, but Members are, I believe, the only occupational group in this country who have employed status but no right of recourse to an employment tribunal. That should change, and we should have the same rights as every other occupation group, solely, I stress, in relation to IPSA and the performance of its expenses function and emphatically not-I repeat, not-in relation to the electorate.
	My fifth and final point is about parliamentary privilege. Of the privileges that we have, one of the most important for the benefit of our constituents is the fundamental privilege of freedom from obstruction in the performance of our parliamentary duties. In our debates about IPSA, Member after Member has referred to the way in which they as Members, or their staff assisting them, have been obstructed by IPSA-by its bureaucratic processes, failure to answer the telephone and the 1,001 things to which Members have referred-in terms of the severe loss of time while dealing with the authority and its procedures. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor, in his  House magazine article on 8 November, said of IPSA:
	"It actively obstructs Members in their efforts to represent the people who elect them,"
	and he was absolutely correct.
	I am in no doubt that this issue-the relationship between IPSA and parliamentary privilege-should be brought before the Standards and Privileges Committee. As the House knows, under current procedures, which in my view are outdated and urgently need to be reformed, the only way in which an individual Member can put a complaint about a breach of privilege in front of that Committee is by means of making a precedence motion application to Mr Speaker. Most right hon. and hon. Members know that I have made such an application because there is no doubt whatever in my mind that many Members are being materially obstructed in the performance of their parliamentary duties by IPSA, but my application was, sadly, unsuccessful.
	I hope that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will not be deterred by the fate of my application; I hope that other Members will consider making an application to Mr Speaker; and I very much hope that their persuasions in relation to Mr Speaker on this issue are superior to my own.

Stephen Pound: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In view of the tragic news from Zurich and the sounds of celebration being carried on the chill eastward winds from Russia, has any approach been made to you, Sir, or to your office to disseminate that sad information throughout the Palace?

Nigel Evans: The country is suffering sub-zero temperatures, towns and villages are being cut off, some people are isolated, airports are being closed, and I was wondering what piece of news could depress me more. I was wondering also which Member could bring that news to me, and I am not surprised that it is Mr Pound.
	I am sure the whole House wishes Russia well in holding the World cup and to send its thanks and gratitude to the presentation team of the United Kingdom, with His Royal Highness Prince William, the Prime Minister, David Beckham and others. They did as best as they possibly could, and we are all somewhat depressed that football is not yet coming home, but we look forward to the day when it does. This is clearly not a point of order for the House, though.

Andrew Bridgen: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I point out to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that if he were slightly more generous with taking interventions, there would not be the number of comments from a sedentary position to which he objects so vehemently.

Mr Deputy Speaker: That sounds to me like a continuation of the debate.

Paul Murphy: May I add my disappointment, Mr Deputy Speaker, as another Welshman, over England's bid and congratulate those who put it forward?
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), whose speech was measured, informed and worthy of the best traditions of this House of Commons. It is appropriate that we discuss this matter, because it is six or seven months since the general election and since IPSA took over its duties. I am not the only one who thinks it appropriate; IPSA thinks so as well. It has embarked on its own review of how the system has worked over the past six months and how it can be improved. There is no doubt in my mind that no hon. Member thinks that we should go back to the old system or that there should not be an independent body to oversee the system. I agree with the independence of the body and that we should not go back to the discredited system of old.

Liz Kendall: As a new Member, I think I am right in saying that one benefit of the old system was that when a newly elected Member took on staff who had previously worked for an MP, it counted as continuous employment. One of my caseworkers previously worked for the former Member of Parliament for Leicester West. He was recently denied statutory paternity pay, which I wanted to grant him because he had worked for the Member of Parliament for Leicester West for two years. He had not changed his job, but his employer had changed. Unfortunately, he was told that he was not eligible. Indeed, somebody in IPSA signed above my name as the employer to say that he was not entitled to statutory paternity pay. Continuous service is one element of the old system that would be of benefit.

Paul Murphy: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that her comments and those of all hon. Members who take part in the debate are noted seriously by IPSA. I am sure that it is watching proceedings and will read  Hansard.
	It is important for IPSA to understand what this debate is about. First, it is about ensuring that IPSA's operation is cost-effective, because we have a duty as the House of Commons to the taxpayers of this country to ensure that it is cost-effective. Secondly, it is about ensuring that the body is working properly. Undoubtedly, there are areas in which it is not doing so. Thirdly, and most significantly to Members of Parliament, it is about ensuring that our constituents are receiving the best possible service from us.
	The area of office costs illustrates my point well. My predecessor entered the House of Commons in 1958. I took over in 1987, until which point, no Member of Parliament representing the old Pontypool seat had had a constituency office. That was not unusual. Constituency after constituency did not have an office occupied by the Member of Parliament. I have no doubt that if, almost 24 years on, I decided to close down the office, my constituents would disagree violently. People in every constituency expect their Member of Parliament to have a constituency base with a caseworker, where they can go to talk about their problems.
	I agree with the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) that there is a considerable difference between an MP who uses the parliamentary estate as his or her main office and one whose main office is in the constituency. The biggest change that we should make is to disentangle office expenses from personal expenses, because an office expense is not a personal one. That matter is causing considerable difficulties for Members and I believe that IPSA is beginning to understand that. It is beginning to change its policy on that. For instance, as Members will know, office rent can now be paid directly by IPSA and we can use the travel or credit card that IPSA supplies to pay certain bills. I do not see for one second why that should not be taken even further. Personally, I do not want to handle any money at all to do with my constituency office, and I believe that my constituents would agree with that policy.

Michael Connarty: I have to disabuse my right hon. Friend of the idea that IPSA can handle treating personal expenses and office expenses differently. When I asked IPSA to reimburse my expenses for living in London to my personal account and to put my claims for my office into an office cost account, which I have run for the past 18 years, it said that it could not handle two bank accounts at the same time. It could pay all the money into my personal account or all of it into my office account, but it could not separate the payments. The system is terrible and not geared up to deal with the reality of an MP's life.

Paul Murphy: The result, of course, is that the service that we provide our constituents becomes less and less effective. There is no reason in this wide world why the old system of ensuring that personal expenses are separate from office expenses should be taken over by IPSA. Its starting that process seems to me to underline the fact that it has accepted the principle that they are different.

George Freeman: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the expenses scandal represented a deep crisis of trust writ large in our political establishment? The establishment of IPSA as an institution is rooted in that distrust and reflects it. As a new Member, I find myself approaching it with trepidation as if it were there to catch me out rather than help.
	Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the system would be cheaper, better and more trust-nurturing if instead of monitoring every single claim, IPSA assumed that MPs were honest and just carried out occasional, random checks without warning, as is done across so many areas of public life? If anyone were found to be cheating, IPSA would punish them, rather than assuming that everybody was cheating and spending millions of pounds of public money on that basis.

Paul Murphy: The hon. Gentleman is right in the first instance. There is and was a great need for public trust in our expenses system, as that has obviously been lost in the past year or so. However, that is not in any way contradicted by the need to improve how IPSA works. It is so important that there should be transparency, accountability and proper checking on all the claims. Today's newspaper revelations about what Members have claimed indicate that people are looking at the details online, and they can examine the hon. Gentleman's details and mine any day of the week. So there is transparency-of course there is-but the problem comes if a system is so bureaucratic, costly and difficult to administer, and occasionally so unfair, that the people suffering are not necessarily the Members of Parliament, but those whom we represent. That is the basis of today's debate.

Ian Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the IPSA issues that is not transparent is the cost that it places on Members' staff time? There is no mechanism through which the staff time taken up filling in IPSA forms, dealing with IPSA, phoning IPSA, waiting on the phone for IPSA to answer and waiting for IPSA to ring us back is quantified at all. That is a grossly underestimated cost, which is totally untransparent.

Paul Murphy: That is a valid point, which many Members have raised in the debate. On days when we have to deal with IPSA issues, we tend to find ourselves spending much more time on those than on constituents' problems or on preparing for debates in the Chamber of the House of Commons.

Paul Flynn: Recently, there was an application for a job in my office from a candidate who described herself as "IPSA literate". The system is so arcane, irrational and impenetrable that to be IPSA literate is equivalent to having about two honours degrees. Many of us have taken the line that to impose the job of dealing with IPSA on an employee would be regarded by any tribunal as cruel and inhuman treatment. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that if a commercial organisation-an internet bank, for example-ran a system such as IPSA's, it would now be out of business because its system was so client-unfriendly?

Paul Murphy: Yes, indeed-my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Given that some years ago the then Prime Minister appointed me as Minister for digital inclusion, I thought that I had some knowledge of how to use computers, but I was defeated in having to deal with these issues. Most Members have to deal with this problem with a highly trained member of staff. I am not surprised that my hon. Friend was looking for someone who had those particular qualifications, although of course he is extremely good with computers and has been for many years.
	I want to make two other points. First, the artificial distinction between core expenditure and other expenditure has to go, because it does not take into account the geographical variations from constituency to constituency in office rent, in particular, and other factors too. I hope that IPSA will look into that.
	My final point relates to our staff. Not many Members have mentioned the men and women who work for us, either here in the House of Commons directly or, particularly, in our constituencies. They have been seriously disadvantaged over the past number of months, not least by the dramatic change in the pension position. It is now taken directly out of our allowances and not paid from the Commons itself. There is a very strong case that the trade unions and staff associations that represent the staff of Members of Parliament should be properly recognised and should have proper means of negotiating directly with IPSA to ensure that their conditions of service are not disadvantaged. This would not happen in the private sector or in the public sector outside this place, and it should not happen in the House of Commons.
	The system must be transparent, accountable and independent, but it must also be cost-effective. Most importantly, it must be a system that allows us to represent our constituents effectively.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. As is self-evident, a lot of Members wish to catch my eye in this debate. I have therefore decided to introduce an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Bob Russell: It is important that IPSA has a voice in this Chamber. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) took on that role, because, of 650 MPs I cannot think of a better person to be the devil's advocate. I am a member of the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Unfortunately, despite my best endeavours over the past three months, the Committee has not met. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) on securing this debate and colleagues on supporting it.
	It is important that we praise IPSA's front-line staff, because they, like us, are in this situation: we may be in different canoes, but we are in the same creek without paddles. We should also take on board the enormous debt of gratitude owed to our office staff. It has been estimated that the equivalent of 100 full-time MPs' staff jobs are now devoted to dealing with IPSA affairs-it is as serious as that. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw estimated that more time is now being spent on this in his office, so even the leading advocate of IPSA acknowledges that fact.
	Earlier, the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a very serious allegation about the head of communications at IPSA. I hope that by the end of the afternoon the Minister will be able to say whether there is any truth in the allegations. Interestingly, today's  Daily Mail and  Daily Express had almost identical stories, which must have come from the same source. The  Daily Mail at least had the good grace to say,
	"Leaked figures from the...Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority",
	so it acknowledges they were leaked from IPSA. The same article belittles MPs for claiming expenses in August when we were on holiday. A good journalist is always at work and a good policeman is never off duty, and the same goes for an MP and their staff.

Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bob Russell: I would rather not, because of the time limit.
	We must not say that all journalists are averse to finding out what is happening. Matthew Parris, in  The Spectator of 6 November, says:
	"Now to the facts. IPSA is careering stupidly out of control. Many MPs, particularly new young members, are close to despair, but dare not complain publicly because of the witch-hunting atmosphere that still prevails."
	He goes on to say that:
	"The salary of IPSA's own director of communications (leading a team of three communications staff!)"-
	who are they communicating with, other than leaking to the national media?-"is more than £80,000" a year.
	There are stories of MPs enduring long waits on the hotline, and long delays when IPSA replies to letters and so on, to which Matthew Parris also refers. There have been approximately 150 parliamentary questions, including some from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw. IPSA is taking up more and more time. As an MP for 13 years, I have come to realise that the job is different from anything else, but IPSA thinks that MPs work Monday to Friday, 9 to 5.
	IPSA did not bother to go to constituency offices. Very early on-long before any brown stuff hit any fans-I invited the chief executive to my constituency, because I thought it would help him to know what goes on. There is a do-down-MPs culture at the top of IPSA. I do not include the front-line staff because I think that, like us, they are doing a grand job. I cannot think of any other description for that culture, and frankly, I no longer care-I have gone way past the stage of caring-what the national media may or may not say about me and my expenses. My conscience is clear. I know that like just about every other MP, for the past 13 years, my wife and I have subsidised my work as an MP. The second homes thing caused a major problem for me like it did for others because of inattention to form-filling, if I can use that phrase. That is a world of difference away from how we are now being treated. Matthew Parris finished his article in  The Specator by saying:
	"It is left, I would argue, to Fleet Street's Westminster and Whitehall journalists and commentators and to political scientists. They talk to MPs. They know it's a big problem. Yet few have entered more than footnotes acknowledging it. Why are they silent?"
	I doorstepped IPSA's offices to find that they are most luxurious offices to be found anywhere. There we have a problem, because IPSA tells me that I am claiming too much for my converted church hall. It has even told me that my claim for a photocopying machine could not be paid. I do not know of an MP who does not have a photocopier, but I was asked to prove that mine exists. I sent IPSA a photograph of it, but even that did not work-I still did not get payment for the machine. It was easier for me to open a new IPSA bank account and front load it with £5,000 rather than wait for IPSA to reimburse me. My wife and I paid that money. I do not know of a family doctor who has to pay the rent on his surgery or pay for medicine and claim the money back, but IPSA feels that MPs should be treated in that way.
	I had cause to write to the chief executive of IPSA because it managed to fail to pay the national insurance of one member of my staff for three months. We all know that a break in NI contributions can have serious consequences. I eventually received a reply-unsigned-not from the chief executive, but from the deputy payroll manager. That shows the contempt in which MPs are held in the highest levels of IPSA.
	I have tabled questions to find out how our Prime Minister and Cabinet colleagues are getting on with their IPSA claims, although I have managed to get only three answers back. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that the expenses of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs are managed by the "Parliamentary Office". The Secretary of State for Defence said that
	"the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost."-[ Official Report, 19 November 2010; Vol. 518, c. 966W.]
	The Prime Minister said:
	"I am aware of concerns surrounding the expenses system and am keen to see improvements."-[ Official Report, 1 November 2010; Vol. 517, c. 495W.]
	There we are-the Prime Minister wants "to see improvements".
	I cannot work these things out, so I asked my office at lunchtime to find out the latest thing about me on IPSA's website. It said:
	"IPSA Claims System-Web Site Error...A general website error occurred during your last performed action...System administrators have been notified. Please try again later."
	There is much more that I would like to say. Frankly, however, IPSA needs to get its act together. Even the Prime Minister says that there must be improvements, so I look to the Chamber to set the ball moving today. If the hon. Member for Bassetlaw wants a vote, let us have a vote.

David Winnick: One point arising from the speech made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) that I shall immediately take up is the need for IPSA's offices to be on the parliamentary estate. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), who will lead for the Opposition, and the Minister will support that in their winding-up speeches.
	It is always unfortunate when the House is debating its own affairs. I recall our 1996 debate on salaries. That was necessary and justified in the circumstances, but no one relishes discussing our internal matters.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is not in a minority of one as someone who wants a proper, transparent system. He is also not alone in wishing to ensure that the abuses that occurred before never occur again. We are all of the same view. Indeed, in April and May 2007, although I do not recall that my hon. Friend was present, about five or six of us attended the Chamber strongly to object to and protest about a private Member's Bill that would have exempted Parliament from freedom of information legislation. I was pleased that that Bill never became law. In addition, about 10 years ago, I was one of those who opposed the way in which the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards had her contract terminated-or at least not extended-and we had a pretty good idea why that happened.
	I would be absolutely delighted if the alternative system brought in under IPSA was doing its job, helping Members, ensuring that everything was transparent and above board, and operating so that abuses could not occur. However, the fact of the matter, as the debate has demonstrated, is that that has not happened-it is the opposite in many respects. The manner in which IPSA was introduced and started its work was, in many ways, intended to teach us a lesson, but I believe that teaching us a lesson is a matter not for IPSA, but for the electorate. Moreover, we saw in May a large number of new Members-more than a third of the House. Surely new Members did not need any lessons about abuses because they were not here at the time.

Jo Swinson: I also remember-albeit from the other side of the House-opposing the Bill to exempt MPs from freedom of information legislation, which thankfully never became law. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point that IPSA needs to do better. Indeed, those of us who would have liked to support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) accept that point. However, does the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) agree that this is an issue of trust? The public lost trust in the MPs' expenses system entirely. If we were to vote today to legislate to change IPSA, if we do not like what it is doing, such a threat would do nothing to rebuild the trust that we need the public to have.

David Winnick: I hope that I will have time to deal with the valid point that the hon. Lady makes. I remember her joining us to oppose the Bill that would have exempted Parliament from freedom of information legislation. At that time, those of us who opposed the Bill did not get much support from Government and Opposition Front Benchers, but be that as it may.
	If it was difficult for those returning to the House after the election to deal with IPSA, it must have been an outright nightmare for new Members trying to sort out their constituency offices, their staff and their rented residential accommodation, either in London or in their constituency. IPSA in no way wished to be in a position to help. It had a helpline, but if ever there was an anti-helpline, that was it. We could not get through to it. Even now, it is difficult, but it was certainly so at that time. And even if we managed to get through to the helpline, the person who answered the phone-whom I do not blame-made it perfectly clear that he did not have the authority to give us the necessary information. I had some experience of that myself.
	I entirely accept the point made by the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that the abuses that occurred did tremendous damage to Parliament. Of course they did. Some Members abused the system in such a way as to enrich themselves without caring at all about the reputation of Parliament. They were obviously working on the assumption that none of it would come out. As I said earlier, there is no question but that we need to ensure that that does not happen again. Of course the system has to be transparent and honest, and I only wish that IPSA was doing the job that I would like it to do.
	I employ staff to assist me in carrying out my duties as a Member of Parliament. I do not believe that I am employing them to process my claims. Why should a member of staff be involved in that? That is not a matter of confidentiality; far from it. I want all the information to come out as quickly as possible. It can go on any website as soon as possible; I have absolutely nothing to hide, and I am sure that that applies to other hon. Members as well. But it is not the job of the staff to be involved in processing my claims. It so happens that I might be guilty of this, although I was not aware that there was a great issue at the election as to whether I would be able to process the electronic devices involved. It so happens that I cannot do so, so there is no alternative but to have assistance. But why can we not submit our claims on paper, as we did previously? I used to submit my claims almost religiously near the end of each month, and I would always enclose the relevant documentation. I would not have expected the old Fees Office to receive my claim without it. Now, everything is separate. The claim is processed and the documentation is sent on accordingly.
	Then there is the question of the word "expenses". The general public might feel that we can claim expenses of £40 or £50, and perhaps a cab fare-not that we are entitled to claim it-or a meal here and there, but there are very large sums involved for those of us who are not rich. My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw is not alone in not having inherited wealth. Indeed, I am not aware of many Labour Members who have done so, and I imagine that a good number of Government Members have not inherited wealth either. The sums involved-utility bills, office rent and so on-mount up to a considerable sum for those of us who do not have substantial wealth. That is all the more reason why, in some instances at least, those expenses should be paid directly by IPSA, once it is satisfied that all the documentation is in order. If everything has been checked and double checked, and IPSA is happy with the documentation, there is no reason why it should not pay those expenses directly.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said that, from the public's point of view, it would look very bad if we agreed to abolish IPSA. I think that, to a large extent, the answer lies with IPSA. It should be willing to listen, and to recognise that the criticism is valid and legitimate, that we are not on the make, and that we are not crooks and not dishonest. If IPSA recognises that what we are saying today is legitimate and valid, and that there is a need for flexibility and a need to look again at these matters-this does not apply so much to me, at my age, but it is important for Members with young families-I do not believe that it will be necessary to change IPSA as such. However, if it continues to remain obstinate and remote, I am afraid that the time might well come in this Parliament when Members will have no alternative but to conclude that new arrangements should be made, and that they should be transparent, certainly, but different from what they are now.

Richard Bacon: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who made a fair and balanced speech. I agree with pretty much everything he said.
	I want to make two brief points, the first of which is about time. I have had to cancel meetings with constituents to spend more time dealing with IPSA, and I do not think that that can be right. The IPSA system and website are so cumbersome that they take far too long to operate, which has a direct effect on the time available to look after constituents. That cannot have been Parliament's intention. When IPSA gets things wrong, as it does, one then has to spend extra time explaining why it has got things wrong.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) said that this debate was not about personal inconveniences, and I agree with him-it is about much broader issues. I do not want to dwell on a personal inconvenience, but I wanted to raise one example because I think that it illustrates the nature of the problem. I recently discovered that IPSA has refused to pay my constituency office telephone bill. I have not met anyone who thinks that is right, but I resent having to spend time investigating it and explaining to IPSA that my constituency office telephone bill is an entirely legitimate cost. So far, I have been too busy to do that. I fear that when I eventually find time to do it, IPSA will tell me that my complaint is now outside some arbitrary time limit that it has set. It should not be necessary to waste time explaining how absurd that is, so I shall move on to my second point, which is about value for money.
	Immediately after the debate on IPSA in Westminster Hall some months ago, I was approached in the corridor by a representative of a major card payments company. In conversation with him, I said, "Wouldn't it be great if we could have a system whereby if we paid for something such as a toner cartridge for the office printer we knew within 24 hours or so it would be published on the internet so that everyone could see it?" He replied, "It wouldn't take 24 hours. We could do it almost instantly, within a few seconds." Of course, that would be much cheaper than the current system. That would suit me fine and I think it would suit my constituents, who have a right to know how public money is used. I am in favour of complete transparency about where public money is spent. Indeed, I have spent my entire time in this House-the past nine years-trying to do my best on the Public Accounts Committee to defend the proper use of public money.
	Instead of such a simple plan, we have this extraordinary situation where the arrangements are staggeringly expensive-they cost about £10,000 per MP to administrate-yet they offer satisfaction neither to members of the public, who quite rightly want to know how their money is spent, nor to MPs, who are trying to do a job.
	This morning, IPSA has protested that it cannot publish receipts because it would be too expensive, but it should be expected to do more-much more-for less money. Publication of all the required information should happen constantly in real time or near real time. It would be cheaper than what IPSA does now and, technically, it would be easy enough to do.
	I ran my own business 10 years ago. I sent electronic invoices to my clients and received payment from them electronically, and payment systems have moved on considerably since then. I do not believe that at present IPSA uses public money economically, effectively or efficiently, so I am pleased to support the motion, particularly because I know that the proposals made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor would save over £4 million per year of public money.

Michael Connarty: I welcome the sea change from a system that was clearly not transparent as far as the public were concerned. It was clear that the public thought that the system we had before contained hidden powers for Members of Parliament and a lack of transparency. The electorate were right to demand a redefinition of what we were allowed to spend their taxes on. I have no regrets about all the things for which expenses were available before but have now been withdrawn. It would be wrong of us to think that the public did not demand changes-and they got changes. I regard it as important that we have an independent, transparent system, controlled and reconciled by a body outwith the control of MPs. That is why I cannot vote for the motion.
	However, I disliked the witch hunting that went on during the process of change. It distorted the public's view, and IPSA is a system based partly on what is acceptable to the tabloid journalists and  The Daily Telegraph, as well as to the few hotheads-only a few dozen in my constituency-who demanded that we should pay everything out of our salaries and sleep on a park bench. As I have said again and again, it is a punishment system, although IPSA did not mean it to be.
	I have to be quite honest that I disliked the windbaggery at the time, of which we have heard some more today, with people playing to the redtops and going for populism rather than common sense in their speeches. That is not useful to any of us. I am sad to say that I could not have supported the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) if it had been selected, because he is doing it again. It mentions apologising unreservedly to the British people-should the 300 new Members vote for that? It suggests that the House trusts IPSA, but I do not trust it. I think IPSA is an incompetent system, put together by people on a board in which I have no confidence, under a chairman who I do not believe understands, or has even tried to understand, what is required. I told the gentleman that to his face, and I have not been persuaded to change my opinion.
	If any Member says that IPSA is not interfering with their task of working for their constituents and constituency, either they are not getting reimbursed, they are getting a member of their staff to do the work for them or they are working longer hours. I have an ongoing case in my constituency of a man of 53 who buried his 30-year-old son, who developed pneumonia and left behind four children. That man is an unemployed bricklayer in the middle of a recession that is particularly affecting the building industry. He is my priority, so I chose to deal with his case rather than to start claiming back some of the road travel expenses that I have never claimed since the day that IPSA came into being. I do the same every time-I give priority to my constituency work load and what my constituents need, and I keep putting off claims.
	Of course, IPSA's 90-day rule means that many claims for such legitimate expenses will be denied me, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who travels two hours to the House every day, told us earlier. It has made an arbitrary rule that after 90 days, it does not matter what we have spent money on, we cannot get it back. Another arbitrary rule is that if we forget to the send the paperwork within seven days of an online claim, it can deny us the payments. That has nothing to do with the legitimate claims and expenditure of Members of Parliament.
	Now is the correct time to have this debate, which is not about having a whinge at IPSA. It has said from the beginning that there will be a six-month review, and that it will improve the system. My contention, as I said to Sir Ian Kennedy when he came to speak to the Scottish Labour group, is that just as a camel is a horse designed by a committee, IPSA's system was supposed to be a horse but is in fact a donkey. It was designed by people who were not competent to design it or they met a man, or maybe even a woman, of shifty personal background, who sold them a system that is inadequate and yet much more tortuous.
	My son is a senior systems solutions architect for Hitachi. He was awarded the Hitachi systems engineer of the year award for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations countries last year. He laughs like a drain every time I tell him about our online claim system, which we have to back up like some sort of petty cost clerk, by putting together all the paperwork and sending it all in for somebody to check.
	I tell my son that two companies are involved-one in Manchester, which is getting a good old pay-off for the online system, and a wedge of people up on Victoria road in rather palatial circumstances who are supposedly checking every single invoice that comes through, and who boast about having turned down so many claims from Members that are in fact legitimate. We have heard that they have even refused claims for people's offices or not paid national insurance. That is not a system that is working efficiently, but it is costing the Government, and the people through their taxes, a lot of money.
	I have had a number of useful conversations with the acting chief executive. I always worry about acting chief executives-are they afraid that if they recommend radical change they could be sacked? He is still acting chief executive, yet he seemed to respond well to everything I said to him.
	I have experience of running a claims system as a leader of a council for 10 years. We used a paper system, rather than an online and a paper system. I also have experience of using the system in the Scottish Parliament. At the moment, I get all the bills for my office, which I share with my MSP, paid directly out of the allowances of the MSP and they then send me a bill from the Scottish Parliament and I pay it back to them. That arrangement is much quicker, much more efficient and much more transparent. There has been a suggestion that we move to a system of direct payment. Sadly, I think that a Member who spoke earlier was wrong, because IPSA has moved only slightly in the direction of saying that it will directly pay contracted regular payments, for example, our office rent and our office council tax. IPSA has also offered to do this for our second homes allowance, but-

Jo Swinson: rose-

Michael Connarty: I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way. IPSA cannot handle the idea that we might want to claim less back than we pay or that we also have regular non-contracted payments that vary, such as service charges for flats. IPSA can handle only very limited things. What it cannot do is handle a system where we send it the invoice, it verifies that it is legitimate, it pays it and then deducts it from our allowances, because IPSA is against an allowance system in principle. IPSA wants a system that is so stupid that we have to make the claims.
	IPSA has done something bizarre in terms in transparency by saying that it will pay on invoices: we send it an invoice before we pay it, it will send us the money and then we have to remember to pay the invoice. I predict that there will be tragedies in that way; people will lose invoices and will fail to pay them. If we pay them by credit card, where do we get the receipt to prove that we have paid?
	The final thing that I want to talk about is the travel card. We get a paper version where we could clearly fill in what it is for and sign it at the bottom, as we used to do. We could then attach to it any receipts that are not coming from the travel office-the travel office will send IPSA every receipt directly-and so all of my flights, my train journeys and all my use of the Heathrow express would be covered. But IPSA does not want to know about that; we still have to go through a system of having this all put online, then following up on the cost part, assembling all the bits of paper and sending everything in. IPSA is not fit for purpose and it is costing us a lot of money. It is not time to take all the power back to MPs, but it is time to reform it properly.

Charles Walker: I am a sinner and I embrace sin. In the previous Parliament, I used the expenses system almost to its fullest. So I am no angel and I accept that I have to take my share of responsibility for what went before-but that is then and this is now. I fully appreciate that IPSA was set an impossible task by this Chamber in July 2009. We legislated in haste and are now repenting at leisure. The Chancellor said last week that "I told you so" is not a policy, but in July 2009 I did say that we were going to regret the haste with which we were introducing the plans for IPSA and we are now regretting them bitterly. The "problem" we have in this place-it is part of its richness and is not necessarily a problem-is that all 650 individuals do their jobs differently, and trying to shoehorn them into a one-size-fits-all solution was always going to end in tears.
	I fully appreciate and acknowledge the public anger at what went before, because it was unforgivable. However, we should recall that by July/August 2009 the Fees Office had got its act together and for that final nine months things improved dramatically. They improved at an annual cost to the taxpayer of £2 million a year. That is a significant sum, but it is not as significant as the £6.5 million a year that IPSA is costing the taxpayer. This must not be about taking revenge on Members of Parliament; it must be about value for money. In six months, IPSA will publish its first year's figures and they may well show that the cost to this country of Members of Parliament has reduced. However, we should treat those figures with great caution, because if the cost to this country has gone down because Members of Parliament are not claiming legitimate expenses or are funding them out of their own pockets, that is no victory at all.
	Over the past decade we have talked about improving the diversity of representation in this place-diversity of race, creed and colour-and we have moved forward immensely. However, there is no diversity if everyone here ends up being rich-wealthy; having family money or independent means. Of course, the make-up of this Chamber is not going to change overnight-it is not going to change at the next general election-but over time it will change. This place will become the preserve of the better-off, whether they sit on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches. There are many things to recommend the US political model, but one thing that does not recommend it is the fact that most people who sit there have significant private means.
	Let us talk further about diversity, because we now have a great diversity of ages here. We have people in their 20s and one person in their 80s. That is healthy. People of all age groups need to be represented in this place, but how can we have a diverse system when some Members-perhaps in their late 60s or 70s-are expected to travel an hour and a half to two hours home every night? We deposit them on a platform somewhere in the far-flung parts of the home counties at midnight. That is not going to encourage diversity. It will not encourage women to come to this place either, if we expect them to go home at midnight. They have not been out for a night on the town; they have been working on behalf of their constituents.
	I did a quick and dirty survey of Conservative Members of Parliament, to which I received 173 responses. I want to share the following five, anonymous, responses with the House:
	"I'm too scared to claim";
	"IPSA shows no interest or desire to keep families together";
	"Regular nights spent sleeping on the office floor";
	"IPSA is anti-family and favours richer Members";
	and:
	"People won't claim and only wealthy people will come here as MPs".
	Is that really what we want a 21st-century democracy in this country to look like? Do we really want Members of Parliament sleeping on their floors? Do we really want young parents separated from their children for huge amounts of time? Do we really want people to be paying legitimate expenses out of their own pockets, or the pockets of their partners or parents? That is simply a ridiculous place to be.
	I have to say that I was disappointed in  The Times newspaper yesterday. I have a great amount of time for  The Times. I read it avidly and I thought that its reporting of the expenses scandal was fair and balanced. However, when it says in a headline: "MPs are already flouting new rules on expenses", it really does worsen the situation, deteriorating it even further. The article continued:
	"The list of rejected claims...reveals how MPs were caught submitting duplicate claims, failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to back up their demands and, in dozens of cases, flouted the new rules. One MP was refused £338 for a shredder".
	That was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have dealt with cases that involved murder, rape and child abuse, and my God, we had better be shredding that stuff! As much as I respect  The Times as a newspaper, if it wants to be responsible for heralding in the age of the rich, privileged Member of Parliament, what I have quoted is just the sort of stuff that will bring that about.
	I want to say one more thing-this is not an attack on the Whips Office, but a statement of fact. Members have heard me talk repeatedly in this place about the creeping power of the Executive, and I will say this: if we worsen the financial situation of Back Benchers, we will inevitably increase the power of the Executive, because the attraction of becoming a Minister will be even greater. It will not just be about the ministerial car or the red box; it will start being about the money as well.
	If the expenses scandal taught us anything, it was that what our constituents want most is independent-minded Members of Parliament who do what they say and mean what they say. I have grave concerns about IPSA and what it is doing to this place. Things must change because if they do not we, our democracy and our constituents will all be worse off.

Tony Lloyd: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who made an extraordinary speech-it was the right speech to make today. I say that advisedly because this issue unites hon. Members across the Floor of the House, but not in some crusade against the idea of an independent parliamentary standards authority and least of all against a recognition that some of what happened in the previous Parliament was gross and unacceptable. I hope that that view is shared universally across the House.
	The hon. Member for Broxbourne put his finger on the main point: this is about the future. I hope that IPSA will listen to this point. We have heard many legitimate grumbles by our colleagues today about the difficulties they have had with IPSA and it is right and proper that they should be heard. To be fair, I think that IPSA has been steadily improving its act, but there are still too many problems with the system, as we have heard. The critical issue is the kind of Parliament we will create if we do not reform the system-I know that was the motivation for the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) in securing the debate and making his comments-and it is critical that the most senior people in IPSA, from the board to its senior managers, listen carefully to what is valid in the debate.
	The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made the point that when we hear about items such as shredders being refused, it brings the system into disrepute. I have had a shredder in my office for many years-it is pre-IPSA and long-paid for-and I use it to shred documents of the kind that the hon. Member for Broxbourne mentioned because I simply do not want to risk that paperwork getting into the public domain. That is a legitimate use of the money that MPs offices are provided because it protects and serves constituents-that is an important point to make. However, I would forgo that shredder if that were the only problem. The important test is what kind of House this will be in future if it is not family-friendly for people with young families and if family travel goes out of the window when children pass an arbitrary age because of a rule imposed from goodness knows where. It then becomes difficult to accommodate a family unless the individual concerned has personal wealth.

Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman think it odd that IPSA wrote to tell me -presumably, it also wrote to other Members-that I could bring my three children to London and claim expenses for 15 journeys a year but that I could not claim for my wife once? I wonder whether I should send the children around to IPSA to look after while I am working.

Tony Lloyd: Yes, it is odd. These issues are odd and arbitrary and IPSA must recognise that the system needs reform. It has begun to talk about the reform process so it is reasonable for the House to debate the kind of reform we need. If IPSA is engaged in a process, we should be part of the dialogue about how to move it on, and the experiences we have been hearing about show the direction that IPSA must take.
	I want to mention one or two other areas where reform is needed. High on the list of priorities for all Members are matters relating to how people move through different lifestyles and ages. Some people will enter the House at a young age, perhaps with young families, while others will be older, but all will have different needs and different requirements. A proper Parliament should be geared up to accommodate Members of different backgrounds and needs at different stages of life. That ought to be automatic, but it is not so now. We need change there.
	We need change in other areas that make it difficult for us to operate as Members of Parliament. For example, some of the arbitrary rules on the office cost ceiling might make sense in the lowest-cost parts of the country, but make no sense in large parts of London and even in constituencies such as mine. My constituency is actually one of the poorest in Britain, but its benchmark office costs are those for the city of Manchester. IPSA has to take those things seriously if it is to allow Members to do their jobs.
	The issue of travel is fundamental. In virtually all the years I have been a Member, in all my different roles-whether on the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench or the Back Benches-it has been accepted that if a Member needs to travel on parliamentary business, their needs will be met, if the travel is legitimate. For Ministers that is automatic, and senior Opposition figures have it provided through short money, but as we move down the political food chain-if that is the right terminology-that now ceases to be the case.
	You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that under the present rules, some travel outside a Member's constituency will be paid for, while other things will be refused. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) pointed out to me that, as somebody who has spent the last 27 years in Parliament actively engaged on health matters, were he to travel from his south Yorkshire constituency to, for example, the Christie hospital in south Manchester, he would not necessarily be able to claim it as a legitimate cost, even though anybody with half a view of his work over the years would recognise it as important and fundamental to what he does.

Kevin Barron: I travelled from my home in south Yorkshire to Huddersfield university a few Fridays ago, as the chair of the all-party group on pharmacy, to talk to 300 pharmacy students about pharmacy and how Parliament operates. I thought that was a legitimate claim, but it has now been denied. IPSA needs to look at these things, although I agree that it is improving in respect of some expenses claims.

Tony Lloyd: The sad thing is that, in refusing what most people would consider a common-sense, legitimate claim, it will now show as one of those wicked claims that IPSA has refused. That is how ludicrous the situation has become.
	We can, of course, spend a lot of time apologising for what happened in the past. Individuals, and the House as a whole, had to go through that painful process. Those of us who were here then definitely went through it, but a third of the House consists of new Members who have no reason to apologise. However, they do have a need to function as proper Members of Parliament. Those who come in new at the next general election will have the same need to operate as functioning Members whose legitimate expenses are paid. That is the big test not for the House, but for IPSA in its review process, which is about to take place. IPSA has to get this right, not for my sake or the sake of the shredder in my office-I will give it back and buy my own, if that is the test-but to ensure that we have a Parliament that can do the work that the public do not necessarily always expect us to do, but which they need us to do.

Peter Bottomley: Parliament should create its own website, on which any Member of Parliament with a legitimate claim refused by IPSA could post it, along with an explanation, and once a week, IPSA should explain to its board, and put on the website, the reason it turned down certain claims. That way we could say in public, "This is the reason we put in the claim." We could put on the public record the fact that it was not accepted, and then IPSA could explain why it did not accept the shredder, the visit to the pharmacy students or whatever.
	Spouses cannot now get their trips to constituencies paid for. Once, when I was abroad on overseas duties, and when representing my first constituency, I asked my wife if she would take my advice session. She did. She has a master's degree in social administration and is a psychiatric social worker. She is competent in all such matters. She said that I was not trained sufficiently to do the sort of work that I was being asked to do, and she may have been right: that may be one reason why she became a Member of Parliament herself.
	If I asked a member of staff to take charge of an advice session, IPSA would pay. If I ask someone who could do it just as well-someone with 21 years' experience in the House of Commons-IPSA will not pay. That strikes me as an odd position to have arisen. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) that the individual members of staff at IPSA are good people. I have been to see them. The first time I visited their building I was going to the Stag brewery, where Watney's was making Red Barrel. The parties were better then.
	I do not want to expose IPSA to scorn, but there are some things that I think stop us being serious for just a moment. We all know that when a claim has been prepared, we have to go through hoops to get a barcode. Once we have the barcode, we must print out a sheet of paper. It takes eight separate key presses to proceed from the stage of having the barcode in front of us to the stage of having a printed piece of paper in our hands. I do not believe that a single member of IPSA has been through that process, because anyone who had would have said, "This is absolutely wrong."
	Once there is a hard copy of the receipt and the printed-out barcode sheet arrives with IPSA, what happens? I will give the House one guess. A member of IPSA's staff generates another barcode to put on the bits of paper. There is a perfectly rational reason for that, but if all the members of staff and Members of Parliament were told that that is what happens next, they would say that it was unbelievable.
	IPSA sometimes gets things wrong. We can all make honest mistakes: indeed, some of our colleagues who were exposed to public scorn made honest mistakes. When my PA wanted to arrange maternity cover and was going to telephone IPSA to ask how it would be arranged, I instructed her not to hold on for more than 45 minutes each time she did not receive an answer. That happened three times. IPSA tells me that, on average, its staff answer the phone in less than 10 minutes. When IPSA did respond, it said that payment for maternity cover would come out of the contingency fund, and both my PA and I would have to sign a statement that what was happening was both avoidable and unexpected!
	That was an honest mistake, and I am not criticising IPSA for it. What I am saying is that MPs who do not even make an honest mistake, but make an honest submission of a claim for a shredder or for a journey that is perfectly acceptable, are potentially exposed to what we read about in  The Times yesterday, and to much more excitement after that.
	I have shown IPSA people what happens when I log on to deal with a small self-invested pension pot: it takes me about 15 seconds to log on and be able to move money around. I have shown IPSA what happens when I engage in online banking: it takes about 25 seconds to log on and be able to make payments to people, for instance. I have explained to IPSA-I think that it understands this, and I am sure that the review will lead to even more improvements-that when virtually every Member of Parliament is buying office supplies from the same supplier, I do not understand why I should be expected to work out from the statement I receive from the firm, with invoices attached, which supplies I paid for last month, which supplies I am trying to pay for now, which supplies I have claimed for, and so forth. I do not think that anyone should have allowed such a rigmarole to develop.
	In all my work-when I was working for the British Steel Corporation, a large organisation, and in my last job, when I was putting neon lights outside theatres and cinemas in the west end with 25 colleagues-I do not think that I have encountered any procedure that has been so demanding of both time and precision as the current expenses system.

Roger Gale: Can my hon. Friend possibly explain why IPSA is incapable of paying a bill directly and insists that it should go through a Member's bank account, given that, at a third of the cost, the old Fees Office was able to pay literally any bill directly to the supplier?

Peter Bottomley: I normally reply "Yes" to my hon. Friend, but in this instance the answer is, "No, I cannot." However, I think it comes down to the fact that members of the authority did not work their own way through the system, and did not talk to, say, a random selection of 10 Members of Parliament to ask what happens.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) mentioned the problems with the IPSA drop-down menu, which does not include an option for us to go to our constituency to attend on a constituent or to attend some official function there. We are supposed to start at our constituency home or our constituency office. As it happens, I have a home in my constituency, but not so far as IPSA is concerned, because it is not paid for from public funds at all. There is an office of my association, which is not where I hold by advice sessions or other events, so I have the same problem as my right hon. Friend.
	I have spoken to IPSA about the problem and I think it has a solution, but the problem should not arise. In the same way, we are told to find the cheapest way of going on journeys by train. Again, this is not the heaviest point to be made, but it is worth making. I had to go to the headquarters of the Sussex police in Lewes, outside my constituency, with a constituent who had wrongly been accused of rape. I found that I could go there and back for £5 return, so long as I booked in advance.
	I said to IPSA, "The money doesn't really matter. It's not the principle, it's not the money, it's a matter of interest. If the meeting overruns, or the senior police officer cancels the meeting and books it on another day, will you please pay me back the £2.50 if I have to take another train back or the £5 if I don't go at all?" The answers that I got were delphic. IPSA was not quite saying no and it was not quite saying yes. It is the sort of question that we ought to be able to put and ask, "What is the answer?"
	As another example-this is the way I work-my local association provides a walk-in service for constituents, individuals, businesses or community groups. As a liaison with me, the association can set up meetings, photocopy documents, send them to me or speak to me on the phone. I am not employing the staff or renting the building. We have come to an agreement on what the rough cost is and made an arrangement at slightly below that. The cost is not a problem with IPSA. The problem is which budget should cover it. I intend to ask IPSA to relax the limits on the incidental expenses. That seems the sensible way to deal with it, rather than force it wrongly into office or staff expenses.
	Such issues matter. Members are told that they must go back to their constituency or not claim for a home in their constituency if it is less than an hour by train, platform to platform. IPSA must revise that. My constituency is on the south coast. I have come in from King's Cross and it has taken 40 minutes to get from the platform there to Westminster. The idea that a Member can then travel another 45 minutes-say, to the midlands-and expect to be useful the next day is fine if they start work at 2.30 when they come back. I pay tribute to my colleagues who are here at 8 am, or before, or shortly afterwards. Under IPSA's conditions, they cannot do a proper day's work as Members of Parliament.
	I confirm the view of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) who said that given a choice between doing expenses or helping a constituent, the duty is to help the constituent. When I was doing my expenses yesterday at 4 pm, expecting a two-hour break, a woman rang up. On 29 April her gas was turned off, and her new boiler might come next June. She has had to move out or would have got hypothermia. It took two hours to get the problem solved and next week she will have the boiler. I prefer to lose some of my own expenses because I came here to do good for other people, not to do good for myself.

Nigel Evans: Order. We will hear from the Front-Bench speakers next. They have agreed to show time restraint. The debate from the Back Benches will then resume.

Hilary Benn: I welcome the opportunity provided by the Backbench Business Committee to debate the operation of IPSA, courtesy of the effort shown by the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie). I do not propose to rehearse how we got here, as other hon. Members have done so, except to say that parts of the previous system did not bear close examination, nor did they command public support when they were unveiled to public view. The hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale) summed it up well when he said that things went badly wrong.
	Things had to change, and the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 was the means by which the system was changed. As the House has learned, transparency was the best way of dealing with the problems of the past and is the best way of doing things. Members know that all the expenditure that they incur will be seen and scrutinised by the public. When the public, our voters, see the cost of the phone calls, the office rent, the stationery, the train travel and the accommodation, which is published today by IPSA, they too will realise that this is about nothing more and nothing less than the tools that MPs need to do their job.
	The first point that I want to make is that in debating changes to the system as a prelude to the review that IPSA is undertaking-changes that are definitely needed-we must preserve the principle of transparency, a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and many others, and we must uphold the principle of independent oversight. I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that nobody wants to overturn that, and nor should we.

Bernard Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that IPSA has said it is not going to publish invoices and evidence of payment? Does he agree that it is slightly illogical to have a system based on transparency and evidence of payment if we do not then publish the evidence of payment, and that that recalls how we got into this mess in the first place?

Hilary Benn: I would make two points. First, an independent body is now looking at those receipts and making a judgment about whether they come within the purview of the rules, which is very different from what happened before. Secondly, there is a balance to be struck between the cost of publishing receipts-it would be very expensive-and total transparency. Since one of the themes of our debate has been the cost of IPSA as a whole, in offering a view, the House will, in the end, have to say to IPSA, "How do we wish to balance that?"

Richard Bacon: The right hon. Gentleman says there is a balance to be struck between cost and transparency, but in fact the reverse could be the case: total transparency through the right kind of card payment-based, web-based instant publishing system could be cheaper as well as more transparent.

Hilary Benn: I think there is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. This debate has produced many ideas and suggestions, and I hope IPSA will take them on board in deciding how the system might be changed.
	We must also take into account that setting up IPSA was a very big task. We all acknowledge that there were bound to be teething problems, and hon. Members should recognise that a lot of hard work in a very short space of time has gone into establishing the organisation. I, for one, would simply want to say that in my experience all the IPSA staff I have met-I have visited the offices-and all the IPSA staff to whom I have spoken on the phone have been unfailingly helpful in trying to assist. The problem that brings us here today is clearly not the staff; it is the system itself-how it was designed and the ways in which it does not work.
	If we ask Members, "Do you think IPSA is helping you to do your job," which ought to be the real test, the clear answer we get-we have heard it today-is, "No, it is not." It also seems that Members are not entirely sure that IPSA fully understands the work we do as Members of Parliament.

Adam Holloway: Members such as the saintly hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) have allowed the impression to be put about that expenses are, somehow, some sort of perk. In fact they are what we need in order to do our job. Before I entered the House, I worked for months, or years, with "Newsnight", "World in Action", "Panorama",  The Sunday Times and ITN, and what amazed me on arriving here was how many things that I needed to do my job had to be paid for from my own pocket, which was never the case when I worked in the media. I cannot think of any organisation that regularly expects one subset of its members to spend seven or eight hours at home every night on this issue. It is extraordinary.

Hilary Benn: The salaries of the staff who support us in our work are not by any reasonable definition an expense. In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, I do not think he was making that argument; that is an interpretation that others have sought to put on what has been said.
	A number of issues have been identified both in this afternoon's debate and elsewhere. The first is the expense of the whole system because of its complexity, the multiple checking, and the transaction cost to IPSA and Members of Parliament in trying to make it work. The second is the sheer amount of time it takes, in part because compared with the old system a lot of the inputting of data has been outsourced to Members of Parliament and their staff. The time taken in collecting, checking, clarifying, going online, copying and posting and so forth means MPs and their staff are spending too much time doing accounts, rather than holding the Government of the day-of whatever party-to account, which is what we are elected to this House to do. We know that some MPs do not claim back legitimate expenses because they are afraid of getting it wrong or because of the time it will take. Some also say they get contradictory advice, in that a claim might be accepted one week but not the next.
	The third problem was the assumption at the beginning-we must all acknowledge that this is changing-that all MPs had a bottomless private pocket out of which they could pay bills before claiming the money back. They do not. Some people are still owed money, others have been overdrawn, and we should recognise that the situation is particularly difficult for new Members, who have additional costs because they are establishing offices for the first time.
	Every one of us dislikes intensely the fact that the money is forced to go through our personal bank accounts. It should not, and that is another reason why the system has to change. The point has been made forcefully that we know of no other workplace where one would tell an employee-although we are not employees-to pay the rent or the photocopier bill out of their own resources, and then pay them back. That is why direct payment has to be the way forward.
	The fourth problem is that the budgets set do not reflect in all cases the commitments that MPs already have, the work loads in their offices or the higher cost of renting offices in some parts of the country, some cities and some towns. One practical and simple step to help MPs would be to allow virement between the staffing, office rent and office costs budgets, because that would allow Members to make that judgment. The overall budget level needs to be looked at, because adding the 10% pension contribution has created a real problem. The argument was, "We have taken some other expenses out," but I do not know many Members who claim them.
	MPs who have been worried that they cannot meet their commitments to staff-the number of hours and so on-have been told that they can approach the contingencies fund. I hope that IPSA will in all cases, therefore, meet those costs out of contingencies, because that problem needs to be addressed.
	We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) about the difficulties of trying to obtain paternity leave, and I know of problems with maternity leave, too. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said about consulting staff and the unions. We should recognise the enormous contribution that our staff make in supporting us and in doing a job on behalf of our constituents.
	Fifthly, we have heard about the impact on family life. The fundamental truth is that MPs have to live and work in two separate places, and we should not make it difficult for MPs, their partners or their children to do so. On the problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) raised, the current rules are utterly inconsistent, because they only partly acknowledge family life, paying for some things but not others.
	Sixthly, there are the problems that arise because of the definition of London. We have already heard some of those cases, including the commuting distance at unsocial hours because of the unpredictability of House business. That needs looking at.
	There is also the problem of what is known as extended travel, including by Opposition Front Benchers, which is an issue for us now, given the outcome of the election. The Opposition get Short money to help meet the costs of research and support, as the current majority governing party got over the previous 13 years. In addition, the Fees Office used to pay extended travel for Opposition Front Benchers and others, but when IPSA arrived it said, "No, we're not going to pay that any more." That prevents Opposition Front Benchers from doing their job, travelling the country to talk to people, listen and bring that experience and voice back to the House.
	Another point, which affects all hon. Members, is that if we look at the IPSA rules on extended travel, we get the impression that it sees us only as constituency MPs. That is incredibly important, because we are also parliamentarians, and, if a matter in which we have an interest comes before the House, the ability to travel to gain knowledge and understanding-to listen, which is what we need to do as Members-is important. It is important that IPSA changes that interpretation. I have written to the chief executive to make that point.
	I shall make three other points in conclusion. First, one difficulty we are grappling with is that each MP is different, a point that has been forcefully made. The way in which we work is different, and a system that does not reflect that is a system that is not working. Secondly, all that has an impact on people who have become MPs or might be thinking of doing so, a point that the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) made more eloquently than I can.
	A battle was fought-the Osborne judgment has been referred to-and winning that £400 a year payment was a big step forward, so we should not go backwards now. We should remember that 19 years earlier Keir Hardie arrived in the House. As hon. Members will know, when he was spied and people looked at his clothes, they said, "Are you working on the roof?", and he replied, "No, I'm working on the Floor." We must not go back to the time when how much money we had determined whether we could undertake this job.
	Thirdly, to be perfectly honest, I wish that we did not have to spend time debating what should be straightforward in any job, which is having the means to do the job. The fact that we are tells us that there is a problem that needs to be sorted out. That is why the review that IPSA is undertaking is an opportunity, just as this debate has been an opportunity for hon. Members to send a clear message.
	I end by welcoming the fact that the chief executive, Andrew McDonald, has shown a willingness to engage in discussion about how things can change. I am confident that we can get change, but it needs to be the right change and it needs to happen soon.

Mark Harper: Before I start, I want to thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your kind words about our 2018 bid team, who were dubbed "the three lions" by  The Sun. I know that when the Prime Minister returns from Zurich, he will play close attention to this debate. He spoke about this matter earlier and will listen carefully to what Members have said.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), not just on securing the debate, but on the thoughtful tone in which he opened it. That has been reflected by all hon. Members who have spoken. This matter is not about us, but about our ability to do our job-serving our constituents and doing our parliamentary work, as the shadow Leader of the House said.
	I want to touch on the story that was in  The Times earlier this week, because it has been referred to by a number of right hon. and hon. Members in this debate and it was raised at business questions earlier today. I understand that the story was the result of a freedom of information request, rather than a leak. I do not usually find myself quoting Sir Ian Kennedy, the chairman of IPSA, but it is worth putting on the record his response to the unfair way in which  The Times ran that story-he has not always been particularly kind about Members of Parliament. He said:
	"We assess that MPs have been thoughtful and proper in making their claims. Where we have queried a claim, it has been the result of misunderstanding as people adapt to the new scheme."
	He made it clear that, unlike the way in which they were reported, the claims were not improper and were examples not of MPs trying to do things that they should not have been doing, but of MPs behaving properly and adapting to the new system.

Bob Russell: Unfortunately, that message has not got into the newspapers. The right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) made a serious allegation earlier and the  Daily Mail today referred to an IPSA leak. Has the Minister received a statement from IPSA responding to the serious allegation that its director of communications is touting around trying to plant stories that are detrimental to Members of Parliament?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman is quite right that the message has not got out that MPs have behaved completely properly. That is why I thought it helpful to announce it on the Floor of the House, not that that will get it into the newspapers, as we know. However, I thought it worth putting it on the record that IPSA has acknowledged that MPs have behaved properly.
	It is not my job to speak for IPSA, but as the hon. Gentleman has asked me about this point, and as it was raised by the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) earlier, it may encourage hon. Members to know that IPSA has been following the progress of this debate very closely. It heard the right hon. Lady's comments and has categorically denied them. It has confirmed that the information in  The Times was obtained through an FOI request, not from a leak.

Ann Clwyd: I, too, have seen what IPSA has said in response, but it did not respond to the point that I made. I said:
	"This morning, a colleague told me that they had been talking to a member of the press who had been offered information by somebody at IPSA on certain 'juicy' bits that had not yet emerged in the press about what certain Members had claimed for."
	I invited the person whom I named to answer that point. That person has not answered and I suggest that the statement put out by Sir Ian Kennedy does not answer the allegation that I made.

Mark Harper: I have heard that clearly, but as the right hon. Lady knows, IPSA is independent. It will have heard what she has said, and I am sure that it will respond in due course.

Helen Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it would help if IPSA answered parliamentary questions properly? For instance, I asked for a list of meetings that its staff had held with the press and of who was present on each occasion. The IPSA chief executive categorically refuses to answer that question. Would it not increase Members' confidence in the system if IPSA were as transparent on issues such as that as it asks us to be when we are dealing with expenses?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady makes a good point. When I am perusing the lists of tabled questions, I frequently see her pertinent questions to IPSA, and I sometimes enjoy seeing the answers. She is right: if transparency is good for us, it is good for IPSA. It can be extremely helpful.
	This is a good point at which to refer to the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell), who reminded the House that although IPSA is not accountable to the Government, it is accountable through the Speaker's Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, of which the hon. Gentleman is a member. Members look to that Committee to be vigorous in ensuring that IPSA conducts its affairs in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

David Winnick: Why has it taken so long for me to get a parliamentary reply about IPSA's senior management team-who is involved, their salaries and so on? I have not yet received a reply, but surely such information should have been routine and I should have received it in a matter of two or three days.

Mark Harper: I can answer only for how Ministers and I deal with parliamentary questions. I endeavour to answer mine promptly and within the time limits, and I would have thought that others should do so too. However, thankfully, the Government are not responsible for IPSA's ability to answer questions.

Charles Walker: rose-

Mark Harper: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has a key role in the process, can help the House.

Charles Walker: The hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) is right to be annoyed at having to wait so long for the answer. I signed it off yesterday as the SCIPSA member. The hon. Gentleman should get it next week.

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that intervention. I shall now try to make some progress, as I want to leave sufficient time for other hon. Members who wish to get in.
	I said that the Prime Minister would be listening closely to this debate. In July, during Prime Minister's questions, he said:
	"what is necessary is a properly transparent system, a system with proper rules and limits which the public would have confidence in, but what we do not need is an overly bureaucratic and very costly system. I think all those in the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority need to get a grip of what they are doing, and get a grip of it very fast."-[ Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 946.]
	That is what all Members have said today. They want IPSA's system to be transparent, straightforward, not bureaucratic and not costly. IPSA should get on with that.

Bernard Jenkin: Does the Minister agree that, as with the House of Commons, IPSA is unlikely to survive a freedom of information request for evidence of payment to be produced? How can it justify withholding evidence of payment-all the invoices-on grounds of cost? That is part of the cost of the system, and it is going to have to bear it.

Mark Harper: That may well be the case, and I think that IPSA has admitted in public that if people apply for receipts through freedom of information requests, it may well have to do that. We will have to see how it gets on. That is the decision that it has made, which the shadow Leader of the House said is a balance between transparency and cost. It may find that the rules of freedom of information affect it as they affected the House.
	The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was right to point out, as did other Members, what happened in the past and the fact that the House made the decision to have an independent system. That is important, as well as the transparency issue. I listened very carefully, but I do not think that anyone during the debate was urging that we go back on that; in fact, Members made good points about ensuring that we retain both transparency and independence.
	Hon. Members gave examples of how they thought the system should move and a number spoke in favour of a flat-rate payment, including my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. However, a number of Members, including the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr Gale), pointed out that a flat-rate system, which does not take into account the variance in costs across the country, may not be a perfect one and that there needs to be some flexibility. They all suggested ways in which that flexibility may be achieved.
	We have heard from several Members about their various experiences. IPSA itself has recognised that in the first few months of running the system it made mistakes; it has been very transparent about that. We know that it made mistakes and that it needs to improve the system. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw and the shadow Leader of the House referred to improvements that have been made in the system. IPSA now makes some direct payments to landlords for constituency office rental, it now pays against invoices, and the travelcard can now be used to pay other bills. Most importantly, it implemented advances to Members to deal with the genuine problem that very many Members do not have significant amounts of money and are not in a position to meet these costs out of their own pocket and then claim money back-costs which, as many Members have said, one would not expect any other person in business, in a position such as ours, to have to pay out of their own pocket, and would reasonably be thought of as proper business expenses.
	Having said that, what I have heard does not suggest that the legislation necessarily needs to be reviewed. Under the legislation introduced by this House, the expenses system and the way that it operates is a matter for IPSA. No change in legislation is required to be able to deal with the issues that have been raised in the House. Indeed, in the letter that IPSA recently circulated to Members, it said that it will conduct its annual review of the scheme in the new year and will look at the problems that have been experienced by MPs. It specifically refers to the impact of the scheme on family life, which was raised by Members on both sides of the House, and the impact on Members living in the outer reaches of the London area-indeed, in places that most people in this House probably would not consider were in the London area. IPSA has also said that it will balance its requirements for assurance against the administrative burdens on itself and on Members. That is welcome and shows that it is listening.
	Under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, IPSA is required to consult the Leader of the House as one of its statutory consultees, and the Government are considering how we can use that opportunity to submit evidence to IPSA. As Members will know, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is very familiar with the issues raised with him by many MPs, either privately or on the Floor of the House at business questions.
	The Government strongly support the principles of independence and transparency for IPSA, as does the shadow Leader of the House. The review that IPSA is about to undertake is its opportunity to deliver a system that remains transparent, which is probably the best way of determining that Members behave properly, but is also more efficient and less bureaucratic. I am sure that I speak for Members on both sides of the House in urging IPSA to take that opportunity and deliver a system that improves on what we have today.

Clive Efford: I should like to associate myself with all the compliments that have been passed to the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who has done us all a great service in initiating this debate.
	I thought, tantalisingly, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you were going to call me after the hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley). Since I was first selected to stand against him in 1989, we have seldom seen eye to eye on anything, but today I agreed with every word he said. The fact that IPSA has managed to bridge that chasm should be a serious warning to it indeed.
	One of the ironies of the debate is that what initiated this process was a desire to deal with MPs who were in some way feathering their nests at public expense, but what we finished up with is the taxpayer paying out more money to solve the problem of people saying, "Woe betide these profligate and self-serving MPs." We even had the involvement of Sir Thomas Legg, who barely washed his face in the amount of money that he brought back compared with what his investigation cost the House.
	What we really want from today's debate, as everyone has stressed, is for IPSA to listen. When my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), the Chair of the parliamentary Labour party, and I met Sir Ian Kennedy, we felt that everything we put to him was not sticking, and that he was not listening to anything we said about what is necessary for MPs and how MPs conduct their business. He just dismissed everything-he felt that he had all the answers and that he knew what MPs were about. I wonder whether some of the more Eurosceptic Members recognise that the system is akin to the EU. I am neither Eurosceptic nor Europhile, but there is a complete lack of public accountability and civil servants have been let rip, and we have ended up with a huge edifice. Every solution requires more expenditure and yet another department-someone mentioned that there is a new department for dealing with the media and press. Each problem that IPSA comes across seems to mean that it needs to spend more money, so we have now ended up with a very expensive edifice.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was absolutely right to warn us about losing the principle of the independence of IPSA and said that we would do so at our peril. We would be wrong to dismiss that as an attempt by him to create headlines and to be obstructive. We have suffered in the past from fiddling and interference from the Government and Opposition Front Benches-over the years, that created the mess that we got into. We should remember that, under the previous system, somebody felt it appropriate to apply for payment for a duck house. The fact that that claim was not paid is often overlooked, but that someone felt it appropriate to apply in the first place shows how far gone and how wrong that system was.

Roger Gale: I know of no Member of the House who wants to overturn IPSA's independence, in which respect the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) was quite wrong. Our problem is that the people conducting the review of IPSA are the people who were responsible for creating the problem in the first place. Would it not be a good idea to have an independent review?

Clive Efford: I would not dismiss that suggestion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw, because no one is suggesting that we lose that principle, but my hon. Friend was none the less right to warn us.
	IPSA must set the framework within which MPs operate, but it must be sympathetic to what MPs confront in their daily business, which it has not been, even in respect of its computer system. IPSA told us that we must pay for surgery rents under the office rent heading, but there is no heading for surgery rents, so everything comes out of office rents. I suspect that my constituents who examine the system will wonder just how many offices I have. IPSA did not listen to MPs when it set up that system, but it must listen to this debate and the reasonable arguments that MPs have made, and change fundamentally.
	I am a London MP and my staff are all based in my constituency. I have had the same staff since I was first elected. The inflationary increase in the staffing allowance was not a living increase, so if I had followed that, those staff would effectively have taken a real-terms pay cut. Instead, I vired money from my incidental expenses account into my staffing account to pay them a bonus at the end of the year, which meant that they got a decent salary increase. There is no viring any more, no spinal column, no incremental increase, and no recognition of the length of service of our staff. I really hope that IPSA takes that on board and rewards our staff.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the shadow Leader of the House, talked about direct payments and we must move to such a system. I know of Members of Parliament who have not spoken in the debate-we should remember that some Members do not wish to pour their hearts out in the Chamber and have the media raking over their personal affairs-who have had to sell their assets to pay their office rent and other costs, and to set up a basic bursary so that they have an account from which they can pay out money before claiming it back. Some Members of Parliament to whom I have spoken have been in tears because of the financial situation in which IPSA has put them. They are not here to speak in this debate, but that fact should not be lost on IPSA.
	If IPSA has not been listening to the debate, I hope that it will read it and take on board all the points that hon. Members have made. IPSA should change the system so that Members can serve the public in the way in which we hoped we would when we were elected.

Edward Leigh: As one of the last Back Benchers to speak, I hope that I can say that we have had a good debate. Everyone has said their piece and made a valuable contribution, including the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann), who is fast becoming a national treasure. If he was not there, he would have to be invented, because his arguments have to be listened to.
	The fact is-there is no doubt about it-that we cocked up the system. The thing collapsed, and we have a system that we all know is not working, and that is hugely complex and massively bureaucratic. Above all, it is costing the taxpayer more money-namely £10,000 to administer it before any money is handed out. We are only a small body-a medium-sized company of 600 people-and if this was the private sector, there would be a little accounts department run by half a dozen people. We do not need this vast bureaucracy, so in the few minutes I have to speak, I shall offer a simple solution.
	I make no criticism of the staff. As I am pretty hopeless with computers, a very nice young man from IPSA sat next to me last week for two and a half hours while, with two fingers, I tried to claim for about five journeys. My criticism is not of the young people who work in IPSA, but of our Front Benchers, and particularly the three party leaders who got into a bidding war last year and landed us with this mess. By the way, thank God they are backing out of this and leaving it to Back Benchers, because this is a Back-Bench affair-it is nothing to do with Front Benchers. My criticism is also of Sir Ian Kennedy who, with his board, seems to have no conception of how Parliament is run.
	My first guiding principle is that the electors want complete transparency, yet we have created a system that is so complex and bureaucratic that it is too expensive to publish receipts that were sought in the first place. It is Kafkaesque. My second guiding principle is that the system should cost the taxpayer less, but this is costing the taxpayer more, so no one is happy-what are we gaining?
	There is something of the biter bit here, because for years we have created ever-more complex social security systems to try to regulate people's behaviour. That resulted in massive fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions, and now it has come here. Perhaps it is time for us to try to create simpler systems throughout the civil service. That is why I have always argued for a simple system of no-fraud, no-error child benefit-a flat-rate benefit.
	We should have a simple, flat-rate allowance like the old London costs allowance, because every single Member of Parliament has to live in London. I say to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and others that it is not for us to determine what that should be-it would be for an independent body. I would be out of pocket under such a system because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr Field), I need a home in my north Lincolnshire constituency, which is three and a half hours away, as well as a home here, but we all know that the secret of happiness is not to compare oneself to others. Let us have the same allowance for every Member of Parliament.

Duncan Hames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Leigh: I cannot give way because I have been told that I have only three or four minutes.
	Such a flat-rate allowance should be taxable so that the Inland Revenue is not involved. There would be no fraud, no possibility of error and no receipts. Every Member of Parliament would get the same.
	What we have at the moment is fundamentally anti-family. When my predecessor came to the House, he virtually had to buy his seat, and when he left Newark station, the station master would say to him, "When will your next annual visit be, sir?" Over the past 30 or 40 years, we have created a system in which ordinary people with no private means-people such as me, who have been full-time Members of Parliament for all that time-have been able to devote themselves to public affairs. I am sorry to get personal, but for 27 years I have carted my family up and down the A1 for three and a half and hours in either direction. I have created a small family home in Lincolnshire, and a family home in London. Surely we should allow people to preserve that sort of lifestyle.
	We are all different-some people have big families, others have small families; some have old families, some have young families-but we need a system of allowances, which I think should be set at a flat rate, and pay that allows ordinary people with no private resources to come to the House and to serve the public. That is all we want to do; nobody comes here to make money or to get rich. We just want to serve the public. We love Parliament, but surely we have to be allowed to do our job and stay with our families. This place should not become the preserve of the rich, as it used to be 30 or 40 years ago. So, away with all this complexity! Away with all this bureaucracy! Just give MPs a decent salary. Every member of the public I speak to says the same. They are sick and tired of this debate; let us end it now.

Duncan Hames: I should like to join colleagues in commending the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) for securing this debate and for the tone in which he set it, which has, surprisingly perhaps, reflected well on the House. As a new Member, I have persevered in seeking to catch your eye this afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker, because although I agree with many of the critiques of the current situation, I do not agree with many of the suggested solutions, including that suggested by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh).
	As a new Member, my experience of this place is that there are many hard-working, dedicated colleagues on both sides of the House, and, having observed their work ethic, I am in no doubt that they perceive their role to be that of a public servant. However, when it comes to our terms and conditions, our mode of operation and even our autonomy in deciding how we provide that service to the public, I have been surprised by the number of colleagues who seem to adopt the mindset of someone who is running their own business. In fact, we have heard contradictory accounts today about who employs whom in this place.
	I have run a small business, but as a newly elected Member I could really have done without the freedom and responsibility of choosing my own constituency premises, negotiating the lease and sourcing the necessary equipment for my staff to use. None of that is what I came here to do. I suspect that some Members here might not even feel qualified to do it. We have all this administrative freedom to set things up exactly as we wish, but with that freedom comes administrative responsibility, as well as the unusual transaction requirements whereby MPs pay for everything first and claim the money back in what we have come to refer to as expenses.
	I would argue that Members need to realise that, in cherishing that administrative autonomy, they make a rod for their own backs, by turning what for most people are the fundamentals of their workplace accommodation into what for us are treated as expenses. I would rather that we let go of all that and allowed independent, or indeed parliamentary, authorities to provide, manage and pay for our constituency offices-

Bob Russell: Oh, no!

Duncan Hames: I accept that that view is not shared by other Members, but I have waited patiently to share my view, which I hope Members will at least respect.
	In the information published today, there are no expenses reported in my name. That is not because I have shouldered all those costs myself, though my team and I have taken care to limit the costs met by the taxpayer. It is because I have put off using the expenses system as long as I could, as I understood that other colleagues were experiencing what might be called teething troubles. My staff tell me that in those early days it was difficult to get either timely or consistent advice from IPSA personnel, but that the administration of the arrangements is now better than it was. I am sure that as the public start to use the information that IPSA publishes, the need for improved transparency will be apparent.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), who argued that it would be helpful if we had some clear headings such as "constituency surgeries", rather than the current description of "hire of premises". I would echo the comments of the hon. Member for Windsor in his conclusion-IPSA is mistaken in deciding not to publish receipts.
	A similar argument applies to arrangements for MPs' staff. Many are modestly paid, hard-working and share all the job insecurity that we, as elected representatives, have come to accept. The budget for their employment, as was explained earlier, has effectively been cut by 10% since May and unlike other public servants they have no recourse to a professional human resources department and are instead at the mercy of the people management skills of individual legislators. Now that IPSA has deemed it appropriate to set their job descriptions and pay scales, I believe that it should also accept the support responsibilities arising from its emerging de facto relationship as their employer. MPs' staff deserve to be treated as people and as workers and not reduced to an expense.
	I recognise the need for the arrangements to be governed independently of MPs, as Members on both sides of the argument have accepted. I look to IPSA to continue to develop a fairer and more cost-effective system. We seem to be agreed about the shortcomings of the situation, but I do not believe that the answer is allowances that offer greater freedom for Members of Parliament or for Members of Parliament to threaten to bring them about.
	As I believe I have set out, there is an alternative way forward whereby Members should have more time to spend on their constituents, which is what the hon. Member for Windsor asked for. Basic office accommodation, equipment and HR administration should be provided directly and Members of Parliament should let go and get out of the way.

Mark Field: No one could accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) of lacking bravery in introducing this debate. I suspect that not many votes can be found in bringing up IPSA once again, so it is to his credit.
	We all faced difficulties through IPSA's teething problems-even me, as a central London MP. I have no need for a second home, but obviously I have had an office to run, like all other Members. My big concern is that all parties promised the British public a new politics in May's general election, which was supposed to draw a line under the calamitous expenses scandal. I am increasingly alarmed that after everything there is a sense among the public that the political class still do not get it. We will have some high-profile High Court cases and I am sure that we will see a number of parliamentarians imprisoned in the course of the next six months. The whole issue will not go away quickly.
	I did not agree with much of what the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) had to say, but my biggest concern is for many of the new intake and I am glad that he took the opportunity to give us his views today. I know that many of the new MPs to whom I have spoken are suffering the most and are suffering genuine hardship. I feel that, in a way, they are paying for the sins of a past generation under the old system, which was so disastrous.
	I have to say-I know that I will be the only person saying this-that I agreed with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) had to say. We have crossed swords on this over the years. He is right that the Executive and their insistence on taking control of these issues has led us down a path to disaster.
	I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) that this is not just about the most recent party leaders-it goes back some 30 years. The use of allowances as a substitute for salary increases, in particular, had been independently recommended and was used by successive Governments going back to the mid-1980s.
	After the Derek Conway case of January 2008, we had a promise that there would be root-and-branch reform, but there was nothing of the sort. We collectively had the opportunity at that time to make the changes and we all felt that we could continue to pull the wool over the public's eyes and went through the calamitous collection of High Court cases in which the Speaker's Commission-including some senior parliamentarians in this place and in the House of Lords-took the view that we should fight that fight. It turned out to be an absolute calamity. At that juncture, the freedom of information case concerned only 12 Members and former Members, but once it had gone to the courts the whole situation was opened up. It turned out to be an absolute calamity, and we have ourselves to blame.
	My biggest concern is, again, for the new generation of MPs. Because of a genuine sense of hardship and a sense of frustration about the whole process, I would not be surprised if quite a few did not stand at the next election. We will have a lot of one-term MPs, and voluntarily so, which is a terrible indictment of the fact that we have not got the system sorted out correctly. It has been a catalogue of disasters.
	I have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough said. In the House of Lords, a daily allowance is paid across the board, without any need for receipts or for an IPSA-type bureaucracy. I know that that is not an ideal scenario, but it seems to me that if their lordships have gone down that route and it seems to be working pretty well, we should not necessarily exclude it ourselves.
	I wish to say one last thing about IPSA's workings. It has promised that there will be a review of the broad issue of salaries early next year, in conjunction with the Senior Salaries Review Body. I know that the Minister spoke earlier, but I wish to say-I hope he is listening-that I hope he will now be able to provide assurances to all Members that we will not go down the route of the Executive taking control of these matters yet again, and therefore having ever more incentives, albeit that it would be much more difficult to have incentives as salary substitutes.
	I hope that when IPSA comes up with its report, as it is bound to do by the end of next year, that report will not sit gathering dust either in the Speaker's Office or at No. 10 Downing street, but that the Government will act on it immediately to ensure that it is properly published and that the recommendations are implemented without amendment.
	We have had a very interesting debate, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor would like to say a few final words in summing up, but I finish by saying that I hope we will be able to make some genuine progress on IPSA and on the whole issue of salaries, so that we can put this squalid episode into the past.

Adam Afriyie: With only a couple of minutes left, I should just like to say a few quick things. First, the debate has been held in a measured and considered tone. All the contributions, perhaps bar one, have been very well considered and put forward in the interests not of the current Parliament and current Members but in the interests of the future of Parliament. We want to ensure that this place will be diverse and welcoming to people with young families, and to those who are not as affluent as others and cannot afford to fund their own way here.
	It seems to me that if the motion is passed-there are questions about that-Parliament will have made a very clear statement. It will have said, "Please, IPSA, we beg you, we urge you: come up with a simplified scheme that delivers what Parliament requires to function for the next 10, 20 or 30 years." It will also have said, "If you do not come up with such a scheme, Parliament will be prepared to act." In order to act, Parliament will need to be sure that there is time available for legislation. Members are aware of my Parliamentary Standards (Amendment) Bill, and I shall make a big, bold, open offer to Front Benchers that if they wish to use it as a vehicle to open up the process they are very welcome to do so either tomorrow or later. I hope that they take up the offer.
	The solution to the challenges that we face with IPSA, and to the impediments to getting to the House, lies with Front Benchers. I hope that they will take the opportunity to allow the motion to be passed, so that Parliament has spoken.
	 Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Main Question accordingly put and agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House regrets the unnecessarily high costs and inadequacies of the systems introduced by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); calls on the IPSA to introduce a simpler scheme of office expenses and Members' allowances that cuts significantly the administrative costs, reduces the amount of time needed for administration by Members and their staff, does not disadvantage less well-off Members and those with family responsibilities, nor deter Members from seeking reimbursement of the costs of fulfilling their parliamentary duties; and resolves that if these objectives are not reflected in a new scheme set out by the IPSA in time for operation by 1 April 2011, the Leader of the House should make time available for the amendment of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 to do so.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Committee of Public Accounts (Amendment of Standing Orders) (no. 1)

Ordered ,
	That Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts) be amended in paragraph (1), as follows:
	in line 7, after 'records', insert ', to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House'.- (Mr Bacon.)

committee of Public Accounts (amendment Of standing Orders (No. 2)

Ordered ,
	That Standing Order No. 148 (Committee of Public Accounts) be amended in paragraph (1), as follows:
	in line 8, after 'time to time,', insert 'to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference,'.- (Mr Bacon.)

UK PASSPORT CONTRACT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Mr Goodwill.)

Michael Meacher: For the past 40 years, the British passport has been produced in my constituency, first by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, then, when it was sold by the Government to venture capitalists, by Security Printing and Systems Ltd and, more recently, by 3M, which acquired the latter company in 2006. 3M has, to date, invested more than £20 million in the facility. I should add that the British passport is an intensely technical document, which has more than 120 overt and covert security features, ranging from reflective inks and holograms to features that only a trained eye or forensic examination can detect.
	Having 40 years' experience in producing this highly technical product to consistently high standards is no mean feat, and it was therefore gratifying for the staff at the production facility to learn that the Identity and Passport Service was rated as the top-performing public sector organisation by its customers. The survey carried out by the Institute of Customer Service was based on responses from 26,000 members of the public, who rated the IPS above names such as Royal Mail, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Post Office. The chief executive of the IPS, Sarah Rapson, said on 13 April:
	"This is a great confidence boost and confirms yet again that we have strong foundations in place to deliver the exemplary service we provide to our customers."
	How strange then that the Home Office is willing to dispense with that 40-year track record and put at risk the strong foundations to which Sarah Rapson was referring by taking the contract away from the incumbent and placing it with a company, De La Rue, whose track record in producing passports is limited and whose experience in producing passports to the volumes required by the UK is non-existent.
	The appetite of Britons for overseas travel is as strong as ever and more than 6 million British passports are produced a year, the vast majority of which are renewals. The current set-up and production capacity at the facility means that, on average, passports are delivered to customers in a matter of days after the submission of their completed application. The quality is consistent, and quality assurance procedures are rigorous and regularly audited. I can say without risk of rebuttal that De La Rue, to which the British passport has been entrusted, has no great track record in the production of this quantity of passports.
	It is well-documented-I do not wish to dwell on this but it has to be said-that De La Rue has not exactly been short of problems this year. Its chief executive resigned in June following production issues at its banknote paper plant, which involved its employees falsifying documents-the Serious Fraud Office is currently investigating that little matter. Another SFO inquiry took place in 2007, during which the homes of employees were raided, and the company has also faced accusations of fraud in Kenya and price fixing in the US in the past 10 years. One has to ask whether this is really a company to which we should entrust the production of the British passport.
	Let me turn to the awarding of the contract with De La Rue in June 2009 and the circumstances surrounding it. As has regrettably become the case in large Government procurements, this process is tortuously complicated and prolonged. Consequently, it is extremely expensive for the participants and for the person paying the bill, which in this case is the taxpayer.
	There were a number of unsatisfactory elements to the procurement that in my view seriously call into question the integrity of the entire process. The first, which was well documented in the media at the time, was the role of Gill Rider, a non-executive director of De La Rue who was also an official in the Cabinet Office responsible for the recruitment of senior civil servants. One of the civil servants whom Gill Rider had a hand in recruiting was James Hall, who at the time of the procurement in question was the chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service. Another was Bill Crothers, who was the chief operating officer of the Identity and Passport Service at the time of the procurement. James Hall and Gill Rider had been colleagues together at Accenture for many years before joining the civil service, while Bill Crothers was also a recruit into the civil service from Accenture.
	I accept that Gill Rider stood down when the matter was raised in the Home Office, but not before, and that was two thirds of the way through the two-year procurement process. Furthermore, she remained a shareholder of the company throughout. In addition, representations were made to me immediately after the announcement of the tender result in June 2009 by 3M, which said that it had found some of the processes used in certain phases of the procurement to have lacked fairness. It is only fair to add at this point that 3M was somewhat reluctant for me to secure this debate, because of its fear that raising such matters could compromise its relationship with the Home Office, a customer with which it has always had a tremendously strong relationship. I want to make it clear to the Minister that the reason I have done so is that the Government are unaccountably playing down or disregarding an enormous financial gain to the Exchequer-more than £100 million-at a time when they are also saying that colossal spending cuts have to be made, which seems perverse to say the least. Also, a large number of jobs will be lost to the UK-probably more than 100-at a time when the Government are desperate to stop unemployment rising, which again seems perverse.
	Another disquieting aspect to the procurement process was the fact that former De La Rue employees sat as part of the technical selection panel on the bid. That surely cannot be right. Those people-presumably they were holders of deferred De La Rue pensions-should surely have been excluded on the grounds of a conflict of interest. In addition, on each occasion during the competitive dialogue phase, when each company had to express and present its ideas, 3M was asked to present before De La Rue. I do not want to make too much of that, but there was no drawing of lots or any other randomising procedure to balance out the advantage at a particularly sensitive stage of the process. I would add that, frankly, I am dissatisfied that the senior officials advising the Minister on our representations to him about a retender were precisely the same as those who were involved in the original reallocation of the contract. To me, that does not exactly suggest a genuinely independent re-evaluation of the issues. I mention these matters not to rake over the coals, but to explain and justify my strong belief that the original procurement was seriously flawed and that the new, non-exclusive passport contract should be retendered.
	On 14 July, George Buckley, the chief executive officer of 3M wrote to the Home Secretary to make the case for retendering the contract. That offer was made-I think one can readily admit this-in response to the difficult economic circumstances that the country faces and to the call by the Government for proposals to save money. The offer was to reduce the cost of the new contract by £100 million over the life of that contract. That included savings from the change in Government policy on having secondary biometrics within the passport. In the current circumstances, £100 million is not a sum to be sniffed at. It is not far short of 1% of the entire reduction in spending cuts that the Government hope to make in this fiscal year; a reduction of that magnitude cannot be dismissed or disregarded.
	On 4 August, a perfunctory letter-I say that with feeling because I have seen the letter from John Collington, a Home Office official and yet another Accenture employee-failed to acknowledge the new, reduced contract offer. That was not only negligent but dismissive, publicly indefensible and even contemptuous. On 15 September, accompanied by some members of 3M's management, I met the Minister-I am grateful to him for that-to discuss a new cost model for the new UK passport contract. At that meeting, the same offer was made again in detail and was subsequently confirmed in a letter on 17 September from 3M's UK managing director Jim McSheffrey.
	The commitment was to reduce the cost of the passport contract by £100 million-from £400 million, where it is today, to £300 million for the 10-year-period. That was achievable due to the change in specifications, with secondary biometrics no longer being required on the UK passport, and by allowing costs to be spread over a number of future international contracts. I am fully aware that the Minister is sceptical that a saving as high as £100 million can be achieved, but my answer is that, although I cannot go into details now, for reasons of commercial confidentiality, the detailed breakdown of that £100 million is provided in specifics and in full in the letter of 17 September, which, of course, the Home Office has.
	On 28 September a reply to 3M's offer letter was written by the Minister's Department and sent under his signature. I note that I was not copied into the reply, despite having instigated the meeting, but I shall not make much of that. The reply says that there is no
	"convincing argument to change current arrangements".
	There is an ample case to be made for retendering the contract. The risks-given that there is an incumbent supplier still in place that is able to produce at volume-are minimal. Also, 3M produces all UK passports in the UK, thus maximising UK jobs and minimising the security risks of transporting blank passports from abroad, whereas De La Rue proposes to produce a proportion of the passports in its production facility in Malta.
	If the contract goes ahead without retender, more than 100 jobs will be removed from the current operation. I understand that only a tiny fraction of those employees will find employment under the new contract. In addition to the £100 million that will be lost to the Exchequer if there is no retender, there will be a further cost to the Exchequer of more than £5 million in severance payments.
	As the Minister will be aware, the current contract with De La Rue is on a non-exclusive basis, which means that it can be terminated at any time. A retender could be completed at minimal cost-and rapidly-to gain the benefits to the UK taxpayer of a lower cost contract. It is also the case, as the Minister will again be aware, that there is a requirement to benchmark the contract against other potential suppliers to ensure that the UK Government are receiving, and continue rightly to receive, value for money. That means that the Identity and Passport Service is required to check periodically throughout the life of the contract that it is receiving value for money.
	In that context, on 5 October, De La Rue was due to start producing passports in volume. However, although it did produce its first passport on the day due, there has been a need for 3M to continue to produce the UK passport at normal rates owing to a significant slippage in the agreed programme on the part of De La Rue, despite the project delivery dates being a key part of the evaluation. As of today, most of the 3M employees on the contract remain, because the facility is still running at normal volumes, but within a few weeks, presses at 3M will get turned off for the last time. I do not think we can avoid the conclusion that the new contract has been unable to produce passports at the volumes required.
	The Government have entrusted, under circumstances that I find deeply dubious, a critical piece of the national infrastructure-the production of the nation's passports-to a company seemingly incapable of doing the job. I do not want to have to take this matter further with the Select Committees of the House, but the Minister should retender the contract before the Government lose £100 million of savings and the country loses more than 100 jobs.

Damian Green: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this debate. Given that he made the point himself, I am sure that he will understand that it would be inappropriate for me to discuss detailed areas of commercial information at the Dispatch Box.
	I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the impact on jobs in his constituency. That is understandable and right-any Member of the House would feel the same. The loss of jobs anywhere is to be much regretted. As he said, the passport has been produced in his constituency for the past 40 years. I congratulate 3M and the predecessor companies on the work they did on the passport, and I am happy to reassure 3M that nothing the right hon. Gentleman has said will alter my or the Home Office's attitude to it in any future Government business for which it tenders. We treat all potential procurement exercises fairly and equally, and we look at the competence of those involved and the price they are charging. The right hon. Gentleman is correct also that the Identity and Passport Service provides an extremely good service.
	At that point, however, I parted company from much of what the right hon. Gentleman said. He will be aware that the contract for the printing of the British passport was granted under the previous Labour Administration, and I have no reason to believe that the tender process was anything other than fair and subject to open competition. He prayed in aid of 3M Sarah Rapson, but he will be aware that she became the head of the IPS only in recent months, so all the decisions he is talking about, and everything he is complaining about, happened before she became head of the IPS and said what he quoted her as saying, apparently in aid of his argument. At that time, 3M Security Printing and Systems submitted an unsuccessful bid, and the contract was awarded to De La Rue. It was signed on 2 July 2009, and the service commenced in October 2010.
	The right hon. Gentleman made an explicit attack on what he described as the integrity of the process. I want to make clear-as, I am sure, would he-that that did not entail an attack on the integrity of those involved. He took the opportunity to name a number of officials, but I am sure that he was in no way attempting to attack their integrity. That would be wrong, and it would clearly also be wrong to attack the integrity of the Minister involved. The right hon. Gentleman said that the process was wrong. He knows, as a former Minister himself, that Ministers are responsible for the process, so attacking the process would be attacking the Minister as well.
	The right hon. Gentleman also said one thing that was simply factually incorrect. He said that all the senior officials involved were still there advising me, as a Minister in the new Government. That is not true. James Hall, who was head of the Identity and Passport Service at the time, has retired, which means that the most important official who was involved when the decision was made is no longer there. I think it important to put that on the record.

Michael Meacher: The point that I was making is that the senior officials who attended on the Minister when we made representations to him were closely involved in the original allocation of the contract. I did not say that all the officials who were originally involved were there now, but those who played a significant part are still there, and I therefore do not think the process is genuinely independent.
	The Minister questioned whether I had been right to say that the process had not been fairly undertaken. I will not repeat them now, but I presented three, four or five arguments in my speech which need a precise answer rather than just "I am satisfied with the process".

Damian Green: It is not very surprising that some of the officials who were at the IPS a year or so ago are still there. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that no single individual or, indeed, small number of individuals could have decided the outcome of the bid. More than 25 evaluators were involved in the process. I am sorry that, when he intervened on me, the right hon. Gentleman did not take the opportunity to make clear that he was not attacking the integrity of the individuals involved. I had given him every chance to do so.
	As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I met him and representatives of 3M on 15 September 2010 to discuss their request for the contract to be re-tendered on the basis of the decision of the coalition Government to halt the second biometric in the United Kingdom passport. As I said then and will repeat tonight, I do not consider that either the right hon. Gentleman or 3M has presented any new information that would merit the adoption of such an approach. Nor, in particular, would it be appropriate to put at risk the continuity of the passport operation.
	The right hon. Gentleman and 3M argue that savings of £100 million are to be had simply because the form of the passport has been changed through the removal of the second biometric. As I have said, I do not find that argument convincing. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the approach to me was made only a few weeks before the new passport operation was due to begin. The main principle that guides me must be the preservation of the safety, security, smooth running and smooth production of the passport service, and the consideration that the right hon. Gentleman is inviting discontinuity must bear heavily on me as the Minister responsible for the passport service.
	As the right hon. Gentleman has admitted, the IPS achieves a high level of public satisfaction in the quality and security of the service it delivers. That relies on its ensuring that all parts of its operation work effectively and efficiently, in the best interests of the customer and the wider interests of the UK economy.
	The right hon. Gentleman cast doubt on the process. Of course, the IPS followed the EU procurement regulations process, which was initiated on 19 June 2008 by the issue of an Official Journal of the European Union notice. The award of the new passport design and production contract was necessary due to the current passport contract expiring on 4 October 2010. The Identity and Passport Service announced on 11 June 2009 that De La Rue had won the £400 million contract to produce the new British passport book over the next 10 years. That contract commenced on 5 October 2010.
	The De La Rue contract represents better value for money and introduces a new design and improved quality for the customer. In addition, the tender process allowed savings on print costs to be made in relation to the current contract. The IPS ensured that all bidders were offered an equal opportunity to compete against the incumbent supplier, 3M SPSL. The objective of the procurement was to complete a fair, transparent, robust, defensible and fully auditable evaluation exercise that ultimately identified the most suitable supplier to deliver passport services. The supplier produces a secure, high-quality passport, and provides production arrangements at a competitive price.
	There are about 48 million passport holders in the UK, which represents 80% of the eligible population. The new supplier is expected to produce up to 6 million passports every year. The current length of the contract ensures that there is the right balance between the level of investment required, the need for good relationships to be fostered, and the need for the IPS to remain flexible and responsive to the way in which the market changes over time.
	The procurement process over which the right hon. Gentleman has cast doubt was subject to detailed and thorough assurance from Home Office Commercial, the Office of Government Commerce and an external audit, including a National Audit Office review to ensure that an objective assessment was reached. The awarding of the contract was based on which supplier offered the best overall solution and value for money, measured against a clear set of evaluation criteria, of which 3M was fully aware and against which it performed during detailed competitive processes.

Michael Meacher: The Minister is talking entirely about the award of the contract. I accept that I made comment about that, but the thrust of my argument was not going back over the past, but looking to the future, and the fact that 3M is offering a £100 million reduction in the cost, which is more than highly competitive and would avoid the loss of 100 jobs. Will the Minister please concentrate his remarks on why that is not acceptable, even if it requires a re-tender?
	The Minister wants me to make a comment about integrity. I referred to the integrity of the process. I did not refer to individuals, but I do think there are serious issues about the conflict of interest of the various individuals to whom I referred.

Damian Green: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's clarification of what he is getting at when he speaks of integrity. I can only observe gently to him that the background of those who were senior in the IPS over a year ago was well known to him and to everyone else at the time. If he is so disturbed about it now, it might have been more useful to his cause to have pointed that out at the time to a Government of whom he was a supporter.
	In a sense, that is irrelevant, because any Minister of any Government would try to make the best decision, but if the right hon. Gentleman is disturbed about the process and about the senior officials involved in it, the time to make that point is before a decision is taken, not a year afterwards. As I say, I have absolutely no evidence to suggest to me that anyone involved-the Minister or any of the officials-in a process which clearly I had nothing to do with, deserve any shadow cast over them. The right hon. Gentleman is making such an implication now. All I can sensibly do is observe that it might have been more helpful to his cause if he had made that observation at the time.
	The right hon. Gentleman makes the point that 3M says that it could fulfil the contract now for £100 million less. As I have said repeatedly in private meetings and again this evening, I have seen no convincing evidence that backs that up. Again, 3M was given the opportunity to bid for the work at the time. The reasons that it was unsuccessful were fully explained to 3M. There is no economic reason why the IPS should seek to put its operation at risk by reopening a contract that is up and running and working effectively.
	I have to end on that point, because that is the most important point for me. I must be responsible for an effective and efficient passport service. Asking me to put at risk-
	 House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).